THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.481 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein who is the wife of late Gopal Reddy, a freedom fighter, approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to proceedings No.112/1437/97-FF (HC) Dt.03.12.2009 issued by R-1 and quash the same by declaring the action of the Respondents in not sanctioning and paying the Central Freedom Fighters Pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 under HSSC case as highly illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to sanction and pay the Central Freedom Fighters Family Pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 under HSSC at an early date and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2 Brief facts are that the husband of the petitioner participated in freedom struggle along with the veteran freedom fighter late Sri B.N. Reddy in the Nizam State during the year 1947-1948. In recognition of the services rendered by those freedom fighters, the Government of India introduced a scheme called Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme with a view to provide pension to those freedom fighters. As the husband of the petitioner had no knowledge of the said scheme, he did not make any application for grant of such pension and after his death, coming to know of the said scheme, the petitioner gave an application to the authorities of the State Government in the year 1997 requesting them to provide the said pension to her husband. The said application was considered and the State Government recommended his case stating that the husband of the petitioner was a freedom fighter and is entitled to the pension as provided for under the said scheme. Despite the said recommendation, as there was no progress, the petitioner again addressed a letter to the State Government and the State Government again recommended her case to the Government of India on 26.11.2008. To her utter surprise the Government of India by its letter dated 03.12.2009 refused to grant the said pension to the petitioner’s husband on the ground that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner is not in conformity with the guidelines prescribed under the Scheme. The same is questioned in this Writ Petition. 3 According to the petitioner her husband remained in underground in Repala Boarder Camp and worked there till the police action i.e. September 1948. The same is not disputed by the first respondent. The only objection is that the said Repala Boarder Camp is not one of those camps which were recognized for grant of pension under the scheme and as per the impugned order a person who seeks entitlement to get pension under the said scheme should have remained in one of those camps as mentioned in the said scheme. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Repala Camp and Suryapet Camp are one and the same and in that context the Government of Andhra Pradesh addressed a letter on 22.12.2006 clarifying the issue. The said letter reads as follows: “I am directed to forward herewith the copy of the reference cited with its enclosure, with a request to consider the version of Sri B.N. Reddy, Ex.M.P. that some of the HSSC., recommended claimants who worked in his camp have mentioned their name of the Camp as “REPALA” in their proforma Applications and the State Govt., has been mentioning Name of the Camp as “Suryapet” which is based on the Collector’s reports. However, since the applicants carried out the activities from Repala and they were used to be called as Suryapet Dalam – who also took training to use Arms in Hills located nearby to Suryapet town for couple of months, and requested to treat the Camp’s Name of Column NO:04 of Verification-cum-Entitlement Report as REPALA of Suryapet Revenue Sub-Division instead of Suryapet. Hence, Sri B.N. Reddy, Ex.M.P. who has already been recognized as the Camp Incharge of “Jaggugudem, Suryapet, & Repala” during the Hyderabad Liberation Movement, his request to treat the Camp’s Name of Column NO:04 of Verification-cum-Entitlement Report as REPALA of Suryapet Revenue Sub-Division instead of only Suryapet, may be taken into consideration positively for sanction of Freedom Fighter Pension under Central Scheme.” 4 From the above it is clear that there are no two Camps and whether it is Repala Camp or Suryapet Camp, it is to be treated as Repala of Suryapet Revenue Sub Division instead of Suryapet. From the above letter, it is also clear that the husband of the petitioner remained underground at Repala Camp at the relevant point of time and as such he is entitled to the benefits as provided for under the said scheme i.e. pension and as the husband of the petitioner is no more, the petitioner is entitled to the said pension so long as the petitioner survives. 5 Accordingly this Writ Petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are hereby directed to pay the said pension as provided for under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme to the petitioner. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- 03.02.2010 C.C. in 3 days B/o Kvsn