THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.1454 OF 2005 Date: 18th January, 2008 Between :- K. Appa Rao and another .. Petitioners And The Government of India Rep.by its Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Freedom Fights Division) Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.1454 of 2005 ORDER:- This Court issued rule nisi on 2-2-2005. 2. Counter affidavit is filed. 3. Heard the Counsel on record. 4. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders of the respondent issued in F.No.112/2966/97-FF(HC)-G dt.5-2-2004 and F.No. 112/1336/84-FF(HC)-G dt.5-2-2004 (rejecting the claims of the petitioners for grant of pension) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to grant pension to the petitioner and pass such other suitable orders. 5. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the 1st petitioner had participated in the freedom movement for the liberation of Nizam State and merger of the same into Union of India and that he had participated in the said struggle during 1947-48 and went underground and fought against the Nizam Rule by conducting boarder camp at Vemulanarva. It is also stated that the husband of the 2nd petitioner was also participated in the said movement and he died later and the 2nd petitioner, who is his wife, has applied for pension. Further it is averred that the Government of India formulated a scheme to provide pension to the Freedom Fighters under Swtantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 and that as per the said Scheme, the petitioner have applied for pension in the year 1981 and reminder in the month of November, 1984 and that in fact in the year 1987 itself the Screening Committee has recommended their claims, but no action was taken at that time. It is also averred that the respondent had issued impugned letters dt.5-2-2004 rejecting the claims on the sole ground stating as follows:- “The name of the border camp mentioned in your application/certified by Camp Incharge does not appear in the list of border camps certified by the erstwhile Hyderabad Special Screening Committee.” Further it is stated that the impugned proceedings are illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. It is also stated that accepting the same border camp, the respondent has already sanctioned pension to their colleagues namely D.Malla Reddy and Smt.Ch.Bhadramma and as such there is no justification in rejecting their claims and that the impugned action is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory and also contrary to the Scheme. Further it is stated that once the Committee has recommended the petitioner’s claims, the respondent cannot reject the applications, which amounts to sit over the decision taken by the Committee and that the Committee members are competent persons to know about the border camps, as such the said action is not sustainable either in law or on facts. It is also further averred that it appears the respondent is relying upon the earlier list submitted by the 1st Screening Committee and without verifying the list of Border Camp submitted by the later committee constituted for the purpose of scrutinizing the applications. In such circumstances, the writ petitioners approached this Court praying for appropriate reliefs. 6. In the counter affidavit filed, in para 3, it is stated that the claims of Samman Pension can be considered by the Central Government only when these are duly verified and recommended by the State Government/U.T. Administrations concerned along with the basis of such recommendations in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme and also stated that no action is, therefore, possible on the applications sent directly to the Central Government without routing through the State Government/U.T. Administration concerned and that as per the Scheme, the verification and recommendation report is mandatory in view of the fact that the documents and other evidences of the claims are in the possession of the State Government/U.T. Administrations and not of the Central Government. It is also stated that the claims of the petitioners have been reconsidered as per provisions of Swatantra Sainik Samman pension Scheme’ 1980 on receipt of report of the State Government and it has been decided to sanction Samman Pension to the petitioners and that they have been requested to send their identification documents on 28-2-2005. The formal sanction orders would be issued on receipt of the same. 7. There is some controversy between the parties relating to the submission of the relevant documents. It is asserted by the Counsel for writ petitioners that all the formalities had been complied with. However, the standing Counsel representing respondent would submit that inasmuch as the same had not been complied with, the sanction of the Samman Pension could not be finalized to the petitioners. Be that as it may, in the light of the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit, let the respondent take an appropriate decision in this regard and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 18th January, 2008 smr