THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI W.P.Nos.14938, 14947, 14948, 14949, 14950, 14951, 14952, 14953 and 16446 0f 2009 W.P.No.14938/2009 Between:
Gade Satyanarayana Reddy PETITIONER AND
1. The Government of India rep. by Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, First Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003, and others.
RESPONDENTS COMMON ORDER:
Since the cause, though independent, which compelled the petitioners in these writ petitions to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, is similar, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions by way of this common order.
2. Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. K.M.J.D. Syama Sundari, learned Additional Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4, learned G.P. for Revenue for respondents 5 & 6, and Sri A. Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for respondent No.7, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. According to the petitioners, in due recognition of their participation in freedom struggle against the then Nizam Government for merger in Union of India, the Government of India granted Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension in their favour. It is the case of the petitioners that basing on the complaints of certain persons, the State Government recommended to the Government of India for cancellation of pension, without being preceded by any notice or opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.
4. Though this Court issued Rule Nisi in all these writ petitions as long back as in the year 2009, no counter affidavits have been filed by the State Government either in the way of denying the averments made in the writ affidavits or in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners attacks the impugned action as illegal, arbitrary, opposed to the very spirit and object of the Scheme and violative of the principles of natural justice.
6. The Government of India, with a laudable and sacred object of safeguarding and protecting the freedom fighters, who sacrificed their lives, wealth, health and young age without expecting and anticipating anything in reciprocation, introduced the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. In the considered opinion of this Court the benefit under the Scheme is a right conferred in recognition of the sacrifices made by them during the freedom struggle. Therefore, the authorities entrusted with the functions of dealing with the claims under the said scheme are required to deal with such claims in a meticulous and careful manner and keeping in view the object behind the Scheme. Such a right created under this holy Scheme cannot be taken away or dispensed with, without complying with the principles of natural justice.
7. In the present case, it is the specific grievance of the petitioners that without any prior notice, enquiry and opportunity to the petitioners, the State Government by holding inquiry behind the back of the petitioners, recommended for cancellation. This is not denied by the State Government by filing counter and in the absence of any denial to the said effect, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation to hold that the said action is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The recommendations made by the State Government, based on the enquiry said to have been conducted without notice and opportunity to the petitioners and without adhering to the principles of natural justice, cannot be the basis for cancellation. This action on the part of the State Government is highly preposterous, iniquitous and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned proceedings vide letter No.4566 (16) FF-1/2009, dated 23.05.2009, of the State Government are hereby set aside. Further, it is declared that the said recommendations cannot form the basis for initiating any action against the petitioners. However, it is open for the respondent-authorities to hold enquiry after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
12th August, 2014 Js.