IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 2050 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 26589 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Ramayanam Muni Rathnam S/o late Ayya Swamy R/o 241, Gandhi Road, Tirupathi, A.P. ..... APPELLANT AND Union of India, rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affai Freedom Fighters Division, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.N.SRINIVAS RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.NO. 2050 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The unsuccessful writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 19.2.2001 passed by a learned single Judge in WP No. 26589 of 2009. The case of the writ petitioner is that he filed an application on 23.7.1981 seeking freedom fighters’ pension under ‘Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme’ claiming himself to be a freedom fighter. The respondent rejected his application on the ground that the petitioner’s case does not come under the said scheme and also the petitioner failed to produce any acceptable documentary evidence from official records relating to his claimed sufferings and the certificate produced by the petitioner certifying his underground sufferings is not acceptable as his imprisonment is less than 5 years. Thereafter, it appears, the petitioner made a representation to the Prime Minister on 19.4.1994 i.e., after 11 years of the earlier order rejecting his application by the respondent. The Government of India once again rejected his claim on 15.6.1994. Then after six years the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The learned single Judge has held that the petitioner’s case has been duly considered by the Government of India which found that his case was not acceptable. The learned single Judge also observed that the petitioner, having kept quiet after receiving the order as early as on 25.3.1983, made a representation after 11 years to the Prime Minister of India and the Government of India considered the representation and rejected by an order dated 15.6.1994 which has become final. The learned single Judge found no legal infirmity in the orders passed by the respondent and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Twice the petitioner’s claim was rejected by the respondent on the ground that he was not qualified for the pension. His claim was first rejected in 1983 and 11 years thereafter he made a representation to the Prime Minister for the same relief which was also rejected. Even then there was delay of six years in approaching this Court by way of writ petition. The petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting his remedies. The learned single Judge has given cogent reasons for not allowing the writ petition. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt.30.3.2009 KR ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {MUK}