IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 1916 OF 2010 Between: Thatipamula Ramanaiah. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, rep. by its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and another. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.No. 1916 of 2010 ORDER: According to the petitioner, he participated in the freedom struggle against the feudal rule of Nizam Government during 1947-1948. To provide certain pension, the Government of India introduced Central Freedom Fighters’ Pension under Swathantra Sainic Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short ‘the scheme, 1980), for those who participated in the said freedom struggle. Coming to know of the same, the petitioner gave a representation in the year 1993 and the 1st respondent-Deputy Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, after considering the representation, recommended the case of the petitioner by his proceedings dated 28-02-1994. The 2nd respondent- Special Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, vide his proceedings, dated 18-10-2000, requested the 1st respondent to furnish the documents which were sent along with the petitioner’s application. After verification of the documents, the 2nd respondent by his letter, dated 24-02-2003, stated that the said information is correct and the petitioner is entitled to get the pension under the Scheme, 1980. However, on 10-05-2005, the 1st respondent refused to consider the case of the petitioner on the ground that the information furnished by the petitioner is not sufficient and further directed him to produce sufficient documentary evidence establishing the fact that he participated in the freedom struggle during 1947-48. Then the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the 1st respondent on 09-06-2009 stating that the information furnished by him on earlier occasion itself is sufficient and there is no need for him to furnish further information and requested the 1st respondent to consider his case and pay him the pension as per the Scheme, 1980. However, as no orders have been passed, he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimmanagoti Srinivas, learned standing counsel for the Central Government appearing for R-1 and perused the record. 3. The proceedings dated 10-05-2005 are not rejecting the claim of the petitioner totally. What was observed in the said proceedings is that as and when the petitioner furnished the required information, the Ministry is willing to reconsider his claim. Pursuant thereto when the petitioner has given a representation on 09-06-2009 stating that the said information furnished by him as recommended by other authorities itself is sufficient, the 1st respondent ought to have passed some other orders. But as the same was not done, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent- Deputy Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 09-06- 2009, and pass appropriate orders, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 3rd February 2010 KVR