IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1660 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/7/2007 in WP NO : 17074 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between 1. The Union of India, Rep. by its Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters’ Division, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi. 2. The Pay & Accounts Officer (Pension & Misc.), Ministry of Home Affairs, 2/10, Jam Nagar House, New Delhi. … Petitioners/Respondents AND Kalvokata Hanmantha Rao, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged 80 years, Freedom Fighter, Now presently R/o.2-1-90, Kothamwada, Peddapalli, Karimnagar district … Respondent/Petitioner Counsel for the appellants : Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General of India. Counsel for the respondent : Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao The Court made the following judgment: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Writ Appeal No.1660 of 2008 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for appellants 1 and 2 and Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 20-7-2007, passed by a learned Judge of this Court (Sri G.S.Singhvi, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, as his Lordship then was) in allowing W.P.No.17074 of 2005, directing the respondents therein to release pension to the petitioner under Swatantra Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (‘the Scheme’, for short) in terms of sanction accorded by the Government of India vide letter dated 11-10-1995, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. The appellants herein are respondents 1 and 2 and the respondent is petitioner in the writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties herein are referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 5. It appears, the petitioner was a freedom fighter during 1947-48. He also took part in the movement launched against the atrocities of the Razaakars of the then Nizam of Hyderabad. In 1982, an application was made by him seeking for grant of pension under the above Scheme. Consequently, at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month was sanctioned as provisional pension to the petitioner for the period from 17-12-1992 to 30-9-1994 and at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month from 01-10-1994 and pursuant thereto, pension papers were submitted by the petitioner on 09-3- 1996 complying with all the formalities to respondent No.2. At that point of time, respondent No.2 informed the Under Secretary, Freedom Fighters’ Division, New Delhi, by letter dated 30-01-1996 requesting to furnish a copy of the letter, dated 11-10-1995. There was some correspondence between the authorities concerned. Notwithstanding the fact that nothing was found to be against the petitioner, no pension has been paid to him and it was averred that the failure of payment of pension was to be treated as a violation of his vested right. Hence the writ petition was filed. 6. The learned Judge after perusing the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, wherein it was stated that the papers relating to sanction of pension to the petitioner were not available and therefore, no action could be taken. It appears, it was further averred that the State Government had been requested to provide all the necessary papers/documents regarding claim of the petitioner and that appropriate action would be taken on receipt of the said papers/documents. The correspondence and other relevant material, particularly the letter dated 11-10-1995 addressed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi-3, which was on record, had been referred to and gone through by the learned Judge and eventually, the learned Judge arrived at the conclusion that the said documents and other events leaves no room for any doubt that the Government of India had sanctioned pension to the petitioner as early as in 1995. The original sanction letter was submitted by the petitioner to the concerned authorities on 19-7-1996. Despite all these things, the Government of India had not paid pension. 7. Furthermore, the learned Judge, basing on the material placed before him and after looking into the entire material available on record, arrived at the conclusion that there was no proper explanation for non-payment of the amount granted by the Government of India to the petitioner towards pension. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. 8. From a careful reading of the impugned order rendered by the learned Judge of this Court, we are of the view that the entire material, including the correspondence between the Government officials and also the material made available in original by the petitioner and after comparing the same, the learned Judge had recorded the above said finding and therefore, we have no reason to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the learned Judge. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal does not warrant for any interference by this Court having no merits. 10. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the impugned order of the learned Judge. 11. However, having regard to the facts and other circumstances, particularly keeping in view the pendency of the writ appeal, we feel it appropriate to grant 4 (four) weeks’ time from today to the appellants to implement the orders of the learned Judge. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 01st December, 2008. Ak