THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19647 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have participated in the struggle for relieving Hyderabad from alien rule and merger thereof, with Union of India. He is said to have participated in the struggle between 1945 and 1948. The Government of India introduced a scheme for the welfare and benefit of freedom fighters with effect from 15.08.1972. It was named in the year 1980 as Swathantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (for short ‘the Scheme’). Not only the participants in the freedom struggle, but also those who have strived for merger of princely states with Union of India, were also brought under the purview of the Scheme. The petitioner claims to have made an application on 30.06.1984 to the Central Government with a request to sanction freedom fighters pension. When the same was not acted upon, he filed W.P.No.28695 of 1996. The writ petition was disposed of on 05.03.1997, directing the respondents to pass orders on the application within three months from the date of the order. Alleging that the directions issued by this Court were not complied with, the petitioner filed C.C.No.548 of 1998. At that stage, a representation was made to this Court on behalf of the Union of India to the effect that the petitioner’s application, dated 30.06.1984, was considered and a communication was sent to the petitioner, requiring him to send photographs and other papers. Such a communication, dated 28.10.1998, was received by the petitioner. He complied with the same. After some correspondence, the first respondent informed the petitioner through letter, dated 12.03.1999, requesting him to send a copy of application in the prescribed form along with other requisite documents forwarded to the Ministry, at an early date. The petitioner states that when the application has already been filed and processed to a substantial extent, the question of his being required to file fresh application, does not arise. The writ petition is filed with a direction to the respondents to release the freedom fighters pension to him, on the basis of the application, dated 30.06.1984. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner received a communication, dated 16.08.2000, wherein it was stated that the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to, since he failed to produce sufficient evidence and absence of verification report by the State Government. The petitioner amended his prayer in the writ petition by filing an application challenging the proceedings, dated 16.08.2000. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the application of the petitioner, is not in the prescribed form, much less it was channalised to the State Government. It is also stated that the petitioner is not clear as to the category in which he falls and no document was enclosed in proof of his claim. Heard Sri K. Someswara Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. The Scheme was evolved by the Central Government, on the eve of the Silver Jubilee Celebrations of the independence of India. It was amended from time to time and its scope was widened. The basic features of the Scheme are that the application for payment of the pension must be made to the State Government and an advanced copy thereof must be sent to the Central Government. The applicant must indicate the category to which he belongs, and the necessary certificates in proof of the claim must be enclosed. The categories of the persons who can claim freedom fighters pension include; 1) those who have undergone imprisonment for six months, (in case of women and scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, three months) 2) those who went into underground for a period not less than six months, 3) against whom orders of arrest were issued but could not be enforced, and 4) those who remained in exile, etc. It was categorically mentioned that self-imposed or voluntary underground is not treated as a basis. The type of proof for each of these claims is also mentioned. For example, if a person has been imprisoned, the concerned order of the Court or at least a certificate from the jail is to be produced. Relaxation is given to such an extent that where the records were supposed to be maintained by an authority, but are not available, a certificate by the concerned authority to the effect that the records are not available, would also serve the purpose. The petitioner no doubt made his application way back in the year 1984. He submitted application straight away to the Central Government. The application is silent as to the nature of his suffering. It is only the State Government or the authorities thereof, that would be in a position to verify the nature of claim, such as arrest, underground, proclamation of offenders etc. When the application was defective on these two accounts, namely the authority to which it was made and the absence of the category of suffering, one hardly expects any positive results on it. Even now, the petitioner has not placed before this Court any certificate in proof of the sufferings that are recognized under the Scheme. Through the impugned communication, dated 16.08.2000, the respondents only requested the petitioner to submit an application in accordance with the Scheme, duly enclosing the requisite proof. No exception can be taken to the same. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is, however, directed that in case the petitioner submits a fresh application strictly in accordance with the Scheme, viz., copy of the same to the Chief Secretary to the State with advanced copy to the Central Government indicating the nature of suffering and the proof thereof, apart from complying with other requirements, the same shall be considered by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of submission of the application. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:10.12.2008 GJ