IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1514 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 5061 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Union of India, Rep by its Deputy Secretary, Minister of Home Affairs, Loknaik Bhavan (Hyderabad F.F.Cell), NEW DELHI. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 N.KISTA REDDY, S/o NARAYANA REDDY, R/O MUNIGAPPA, JAGDEVPUR MANDAL, MEDAK DISTRICT,A.P., 2 THE GOVERNMENT OF A.P., REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (F.F) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1514 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) The Union of India is in appeal aggrieved by the Order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.5061 of 2000 directing it to grant pension to the writ petitioner in accordance with Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 from the date of the application of the writ petitioner. The case of the writ petitioner was that he had to go underground during the freedom struggle so as to avoid arrest and therefore, he fulfilled the requirements to avail Freedom Fighters’ Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The stand of the Union of India, basing upon the document in Urdu relied upon by the writ petitioner, was that the said document stated to the effect that he had already been placed under detention and therefore, his claim that he had gone underground could not be believed. It is however, relevant to note that the Government of Andhra Pradesh by it’s letter dated 08.01.1998 addressed to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, clarified that the arrest warrant, being the Urdu document relied upon by the writ petitioner, was translated wrongly and instead of mentioning the words “to be arrested”, the words “under detention” had been mentioned. Clarifying the above aspect, the Government of Andhra Pradesh requested the Government of India to take necessary action as per the Pension Scheme in respect of the applications recommended by it earlier. Taking note of the aforestated circumstances, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the writ petitioner was entitled to pension as it could not be doubted that he went underground to avoid arrest. The learned Judge also observed that the State Government, after thorough enquiry, recommended the case of the writ petitioner who was 82 years old and the very purpose of granting Freedom Fighters’ Pension would be frustrated, if not granted at the appropriate time. Accordingly, the learned Judge issued a direction to the Union of India to grant pension to the writ petitioner in accordance with the Scheme from the date of the writ petitioner’s application. It is brought to our notice that pursuant to the aforestated order of the learned Judge, the Union of India has already extended the benefit of the Pension Scheme to the writ petitioner. It is also not disputed that the others covered under the arrest warrant (Urdu document) relied upon by the writ petitioner, have already been given the similar benefit. It is the stand of Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General for India, that the writ petitioner would have been arrested for two months under the arrest warrant and would therefore be ineligible under the Pension Scheme, which requires detention/going underground for a minimum period of six months. The said contention does not hold water in view of the fact that the writ petitioner, admittedly, was not arrested pursuant to the arrest warrant and had to go underground. Nothing is placed on record to show that he had gone underground for less than a period of six months. In view of the facts and circumstances aforestated, we are of the opinion that no grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 8th September, 2009. VGSR / PGS