THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.22257 0f 2007 Between:
1. Cherukuri Nagabhushanam (died per LR, R2) PETITIONERS AND
1. Under Secretary, Freedom Fighters Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Loknayak Bhavan, Government of India, New Delhi, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the proceedings No.53/CC/4/2005-FF(HC), dated 27.08.2007 passed by the 1st respondent, wherein and whereunder the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the 1st petitioner for grant of freedom fighters pension under Swatantra Sainink Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter called ‘the Scheme’). Pending the writ petition, the 1st petitioner passed away and this Court permitted the 2nd petitioner to come on record as the legal representative of the 1st petitioner by virtue of the order in W.P.M.P.No.26508 of 2014, dated 7.08.2014.
2. Heard Sri K. Chinnababa, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P. Venugopal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and learned G.P. for Revenue for respondents 2 and 3.
3. According to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the 1st petitioner submitted an application to the 1st respondent on 13.11.1985 claiming freedom fighters pension under the Scheme. Earlier the application submitted by the 1st petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent by way of an order dated 29.06.1994 on the ground that the said application was received by the Home Ministry after the last date prescribed for receipt of applications. It is further pleaded that the application of the 1st petitioner was placed before the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee on 27.07.1997 as Agenda at Sl.No.320 in File No.112/3296/1993/FF(HC) and the Committee recommended the case of the 1st petitioner recognising him as a freedom fighter for grant of pension. According to the petitioners the 1st respondent addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent on 25.01.2005, asking to submit enquiry report in the case of the 1st petitioner. It is stated that subsequently, the 1st petitioner attended the office of the District Revenue Officer for enquiry and submitted all the required documents in support of his claim. Subsequently, questioning inaction on the part of the authorities, the 1st petitioner filed W.P.No.18815 of 2005 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 29.08.2005, directing the respondents to complete the enquiry within eight weeks and to take action. It is further pleaded that the 2nd respondent-State Government submitted a report, vide Lr.No.44188/FF.I/A2/05-3, dated 12.04.2006, duly recommending the case of the 1st petitioner for grant of freedom fighters pension.
4. The grievance, precisely, in the present writ petition is that the 1st respondent-Union of India passed the impugned order, bearing No.53/CC/4/2005-FF(HC), dated 27.08.2007, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on technical grounds despite the reports at the State Government level. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection dated 27.08.2007 passed by the 1st respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, denying the averments in the writ affidavit and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only after thorough enquiry at the ground level, the Government of A.P., vide Lr.No.44188/FF.I/A2/05-3, dated 12.04.2006, recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighters pension under the Scheme, and as such, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the 1st respondent in not granting the pension in favour of the petitioner. Reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in identical circumstances, the 1st respondent-Union of India sanctioned freedom fighters pension to as many as 37 individuals, and as such, denial of relief in favour of the petitioner is highly discriminatory and in total violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the Union of India is not justified in discarding the report submitted by the revenue authorities and the State Government, without any reasonable grounds. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claims of the freedom fighters are required to be considered sympathetically and not in hyper technical manner.
7. Per contra, it is vehemently contended by the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Union of India that the 1st respondent is perfectly justified in rejecting the claim of the 1st petitioner and simply because identically situated persons are granted the relief, the same cannot be the basis for granting the relief in favour of the 1st petitioner. It is also contended by the learned Standing Counsel that necessary steps are being taken to review such cases also.
8. In the light of the pleadings, contentions and submissions, now the questions that arise for consideration of this Court are whether the order impugned in the writ petition is sustainable and tenable, and whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief in the present writ petition.
9. The Union of India with a laudable and sacred object of safeguarding the freedom fighters from the onslaught of the financial constraints, which they are exposed to, because of the sacrifices made by them during the freedom struggle at the cost of their health, wealth and young age, introduced the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The benefit conferred by virtue of the said Scheme on the freedom fighters, in the considered opinion of this court, is neither a charity nor a gratis and on the other hand, the same is a right conferred on the freedom fighters in recognition of their sacrifices. While considering the claims under the Scheme, the authorities entrusted with the functions under the said Scheme are required to examine the claims in a sympathetic manner and not in hyper technical manner. The authorities are required to adopt a pragmatic approach towards the claims.
10. In the instant case, there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the fact that after thorough and meticulous enquiry made at the ground level, the State Government by way of a letter vide Lr.No.44188/FF.I/A2/05-3, dated 12.04.2006, recommended the case of the 1st petitioner for grant of freedom fighters pension. Therefore, such report is required to be given credence and value, while dealing with the claims.
11. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Panjala Rajaiah v. Government of India[1] wherein this Court categorically discussed about the credence, which needs to be given to the report of the State Government.
12. In State of Maharastra v. Namdeo[2] the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.19 held that on the basis of evidence/documents/ material submitted by the applicant, the Government should examine whether it is a genuine case and whether the documents produced establish that the applicant had participated in the freedom movement. The Apex Court also held that the said exercise should be done by applying the principle of probability. The Apex Court further observed that if the material/documents produced are otherwise convincing, the Government in appropriate cases may not insist on strict compliance with all the requirements stated in the Scheme.
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurudial Singh v. Union of India and ors
[3]
and Kamlabai Sinkar v. State of Maharashtra
[4]
, and this Court in Bommakanti Venkavva v. Union of India[5] held that the standard of proof applicable while dealing with the claims under the freedom fighters pension should be on the basis of preponderance of probabilities but not on the touch stone of test of probability beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Another significant aspect, which needs mention, is that there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the fact that the 1st respondent sanctioned pension to the similarly situated 37 individuals. In the opinion of this Court, the action of the 1st respondent in denying the same benefit to the petitioner, undoubtedly, tantamounts to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15. Even though it is pleaded in the counter affidavit that the 1st respondent is contemplating to take action against the 37 individuals, there is absolutely no material on record to show that any such action is initiated so far.
16. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no justification on the part of the 1st respondent in rejecting the claim of the 1st petitioner for grant of benefits under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension, Scheme 1980.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, and having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in the judgments referred to above the impugned proceedings No.53/CC/4/2005-FF(HC), dated 27.08.2007 issued by the 1st respondent, are hereby set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to grant pension in favour of the petitioner No.2, who is none other than the wife of the 1st petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
25th August, 2014 Js.
[1] 2006 (4) ALD 185
[2] 2014 (2) ALD 74 SC
[3] (2001) 8 SCC 8
[4] (2012) 11 SCC 754
[5] 2013 (5) ALD 173