THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.3364 0f 2010 Between:
Enigala Janardhan Reddy PETITIONER AND The Government of India, rep. by its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi.
RESPONDENT ORDER:
In the present writ petition the petitioner, who is a freedom fighter, is seeking a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct the respondent-Union of India to grant freedom fighters pension to the petitioner from the date of application i.e., 14.12.1997, under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.
2. Heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent- Union of India, apart from perusing the material made available before this Court.
3. According to the petitioner, he is a freedom fighter and he fought against the Nizam Government for merger of Hyderabad State in the Union of India during the period 1947-48 and he applied for freedom fighters pension in the year 1997. Earlier, when his application was rejected on the ground that the boarder camp mentioned in his application was not included in the list of boarder camps certified by the erstwhile Hyderabad Special Screening Committee, the petitioner, figuring as petitioner No.9 along with the others, filed W.P.No.1607 of 2004. Pending disposal of the said writ petition as many as 18 additional camps including the one indicted in the petitioner’s application, were also recognised. Taking into consideration of the same, this Court disposed of the said writ petition by way of the order dated 14.11.2006 and the operative portion of the said order reads as under.
“In view of the statements made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:
(1) the cases of petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 19, 21, 23 and 28 shall be reconsidered by the competent authority of Government of India and decided within a period of three months from today;
(2) such of the petitioners, who are treated eligible and found entitled to receive pension under the 1980 Scheme shall be paid pension including the arrears, if any, from the date of their eligibility; and
(3) the remaining petitioners are granted leave to withdraw their cause with liberty to file fresh applications for grant of pension under the 2980 Scheme.”
4. In pursuance of the above orders, the Union of India, vide orders dated 22.09.2009 sanctioned pension in favour of the petitioner with effect from 15.04.2009. The grievance in the present writ petition is that though the petitioner is entitled for pension from the date of his application i.e., from 14.12.1997, the respondent granted pension only from 15.04.2009. Assailing the said action as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principle of natural justice, the instant writ petition came to be filed.
5. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, denying the impugned action.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondent in granting freedom fighters pension only from 15.04.2009 and not from the date of the application is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational and opposed to the Pension Scheme. It is further contended that for no fault of the petitioner, he ought not to have been denied the pension for the anterior period i.e., from the date of his application.
7. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent-Union of India that there is neither illegality nor irrationality in the impugned action and the same is in conformity with the Scheme. It is further contended that in the absence of any illegality and arbitrariness, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The Union of India, with a holy intention and 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 at the cost of their health, wealth and young age, introduced the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The benefit under the said august Scheme, in the considered opinion of this Court, is neither a gratis nor a charity, and on the other hand, it is a right conferred on the freedom fighters. Therefore, the authorities entrusted with the function of dealing with the claims under the said Scheme are required to address the claims in a pragmatic and sympathetic manner and in accordance with the object behind the scheme.
9. The material available before this Court manifestly discloses that the petitioner submitted his application on 14.12.1997 and his application was rejected by the respondent by way of a letter dated 3.01.2003 on the ground that the boarder camp shown in his application was not included in the list of boarder camps certified by the High-power Screening Committee and the said rejection compelled the petitioner and certain others, who also received identical letters, to institute W.P.No.1607 of 2004 before this Court. It is also an admitted fact that pending the said writ petition, the respondent authorities recognised as many as 18 additional boarder camps including the boarder camp indicated in the application of the petitioner. Taking into consideration of the same, this court on 14.11.2006 disposed of the said W.P.No.1607 of 2004, directing reconsideration of the case of the petitioners therein and to take a decision within three months from the date of the order. In the said order this Court also made it clear that the petitioners therein including the petitioner in the present writ petition shall be entitled to compensation including arrears from the date of their eligibility.
10. In the instant case, the respondent, while issuing the order of sanction dated 22.09.2009, granted pension with effect from 15.04.2009. The said action on the part of the respondent, in not granting the pension at least from the date of expiry of three months period fixed by this Court in W.P.No.1607 of 2004, in the considered opinion of this Court, is patently iniquitous, preposterous and unreasonable besides being irrational and this Court does not find any justification on the part of the respondent in denying the claim of the petitioner for the period, commencing from the date of expiry of three months from the date of order in W.P.No.1607 of 2004 dated 14.11.2006. It is also to be noted that no plausible explanation is forthcoming from the respondent in the direction of justifying the said action. The contention sought to be pressed into service by the respondent that since the claim of the petitioner is based on the secondary evidence the compensation granted in favour of the petitioner with effect from 15.04.2009 is justified, by any stretch of imagination, cannot stand for the twin tests of reasonableness and rationality in the factual background of the case. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming as to why the respondent-authority had taken nearly three years after the orders in W.P.No.1607 of 2004 for issuing the sanction orders dated 22.09.2009 and for the said delay the petitioner cannot be made to forego the benefit. The judgments referred to in the counter of the respondent would not render any assistance to them in the facts and circumstances of the present case for denying the relief for the said period.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed in part, declaring that the petitioner is entitled for the freedom fighters pension from the month of March, 2007 till 14.04.2009 also and the respondent is directed to sanction and pay the freedom fighters pension to the petitioner for the said period within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with interest accrued thereon at the rate of 6% per annum. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
16th September, 2014 Js.