IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18104 of 2008 Between: Devaraju Samabamurthy S/o. Rajanna R/o.H.No.13-59, Near Bada Hanman Temple Chinnoor - 504 201, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, rep. by its Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Khan Market, Freedom Fighters Division, Loknayak Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Freedom Fighters Division, 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 will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to grant Freedom Fighters Pension to the petitioner herein under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order by duly declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not granting the Freedom Fighters Pension to the petitioner though the 1st respondent received all the documents from the 2nd respondent i.e., verification report and all the documents relating to the case of the petitioner for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the scheme envisaged i.e., Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESHWAR VARANASI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by Devaraju Samabamurthyu assailing the inaction of the respondents in considering his application for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The petitioner claims that he is a Freedom Fighter and is entitled to the pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. According to him, he participated in the Former State of Hyderabad Liberation Struggle while pursuing his education during the year 1947-1948. He made an application for grant of pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Revenue-2nd respondent. He was examined by the Special Screening Committee on 28.3.1998. The Screening Committee recommended his case to the 1st respondent for grant of pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The 1st respondent called for the verification reports from the concerned revenue authorities. The 2nd respondent in its memo dated 16.6.2001 directed all the District Collectors concerned to send the verification reports together with specific recommendations with original documents, affidavits and also certificates. When the revenue authorities have not submitted their remarks, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP No.22710 of 2003. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 6.1.2004 directing the 3rd and 4th respondents therein to take further steps in the matter of forwarding the application of the petitioner if it is otherwise in order. According to the petitioner, the District Collector, Adilabad sent verification report to the 2nd respondent vide letter No.C3/5271/2005, dated 5.12.2005. The 2nd respondent returned the report to the District Collector with some objections. The District Collector after complying the objections forwarded the report to the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.C3/1639/2007, dated 31.8.2007. Since there is no further action on the part of the 1st respondent, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Assistant Solicitor General received notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. Learned Government Pleader received notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the case of the petitioner will be considered in the forthcoming meeting. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________ 20-08-2008 rkk