IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16150 of 2007 Between: K. Rajagopal Rao, S/o. Late Tirumal Rao, R/o. Singotam Village, Kollapur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Ministry of Home Affaris, Freedom Fighters Division, Lokh Naik Bhawan, New Dehi. 2 The Government of Andrha Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Proceedings No. 112/698/98/FF (HC)(F) dated 11.5.2007. Proc. No. 55/CC/14/2006 - FF (HC) dated 11.5.2007 and Proc. No. 112/698/98 - FF (HC)(F) dated 15.5.2007 issued by the ﬁrst respondent are illegal, arbitrary and against the spirit of the Swantantra Sanik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 and set aside the same and consequently direct the ﬁrst respondent to grant the pension under the Scheme with eﬀect from 12.9.2003 as directed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 3090 of 2006, dated 18-01-2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR A.SAMIR KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: G.P. FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by K.Rajagopal Rao with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.112/698/98-FF (HC)(F), dated 11.05.2007, Proc.No.55/CC/14/2006-FF (HC) dated 11.05.2007 and Proc.No.112/698/98-FF (HC)(F) dated 15.05.2007 issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Home Aﬀairs, Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi-1st respondent are illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to grant pension to the petitioner under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short, ‘the 1980 Scheme’). 2. The petitioner claims that he is a freedom ﬁghter. He is aged about 83 years. He claims that he had participated in the freedom movement for merger of the erstwhile Hyderabad State into the Indian Union during the years 1947 and 1948. As a consequence of this, Nizam’s Police registered FIR and submitted report to the Munsif Magistrate, Kollapur on 16th Isfandar, 1357 Fasli under Section 155 of the Hyderabad State Criminal Procedure Code. As a sequel to this, warrant of his arrest was issued. In order to evade the arrest, he went underground in Jammalamadaka in Guntur District and then joined the camp at Morrakonda in Kurnool District. After promulgation of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, the petitioner directly submitted application dated 13.05.1985 to the Government of India for sanction of pension by treating him as freedom ﬁghter. No action appears to have been taken on that application because the same was not accompanied by the relevant documents. The petitioner submitted representation to the respondents along with necessary documents. After getting an enquiry conducted for veriﬁcation of the genuineness of the documents, the State Government forwarded the petitioner’s claim for pension to the Government of India-1st respondent. The 1st respondent rejected the same on the ground of certain deﬁciencies in the papers and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.06.2002. The petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.22848 of 2004 challenging the rejection of his application. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 16.06.2005 with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider his application within two months from the date of receipt of a certiﬁed copy of the order. After waiting for some time, the petitioner ﬁled Contempt Case No.1462 of 2005. The said Contempt Case came to be closed since the 1st respondent passed necessary orders on the application ﬁled by the petitioner. Thereafter, he ﬁled W.P.No.3090 of 2006 questioning the order of rejection. The said writ petition came to be allowed, by order dated 18.01.2007. The relevant portion of the order passed in the said writ petition reads as hereunder: “If the petitioner’s case is considered in the light of the propositions laid down in the latter decision, it is not possible to entertain his prayer for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to sanction pension to him under the 1980 Scheme. However, keeping in view the admitted fact that Sri K.Kistaiah, against whom arrest of warrant was issued along with the petitioner, has been treated as freedom ﬁghter for the purpose of the 1980 Scheme and pension has been sanctioned to him, I feel that ends of justice would be met by directing respondent No.1 to once again consider the petitioner’s case for sanction of pension in the light of the documents already furnished by him as also the documents annexed with the writ petition and decide the same keeping in view the fact that pension has already been sanctioned to a similarly situated person namely, Sri K.Kistaiah. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim for grant of pension under the 1980 Scheme vide letter dated 03.01.2006 is declared illegal and quashed. Respondent No.1 shall re-consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the observations made in this order and pass appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certiﬁed copy of this order. If the Government of India comes to the conclusion that the petitioner’s case is similar to that of Sri K.Kistaiah, then appropriate order be passed for sanction of pension to the petitioner with eﬀect from 12.09.2003 i.e. the date on which pension was sanctioned to Sri K.Kistaiah. In that event, arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within next three months.” The respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner as directed by this Court in W.P.No.3090 of 2006 and it necessitated the petitioner to ﬁle Contempt Case No.303 of 2007 and the same came to be closed in view of the order dated 11.05.2007 passed by the 1st respondent. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 30.07.2007. The ﬁrst respondent ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. S.D.Kaushik, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Aﬀairs, Union of India, New Delhi, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the claim of the petitioner will be reviewed after re-veriﬁcation by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh and the matter will be placed before the New Screening Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel of Central Government appearing for the 1st respondent and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 2nd respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the State Government on re-veriﬁcation of the petitioner’s claim, recommended for sanction of pension to the petitioner on 26.01.2008 and the said recommendation is pending with the first respondent for passing appropriate orders. 6. This factual aspect has not been controverted by the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the ﬁrst respondent to consider the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:16th September, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. within a week. B/o cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}