IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33979 of 2011 Between:
Konkati Malla Reddy, S/o. Nagareddy, Aged 84 years, R/o. Medarametla (v), Mogullapally (M), Warangal District & another .. Petitioners AND The Government of India, Rep. by its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi & another .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33979 of 2011 ORDER:
Both the petitioners claim that they have participated in the freedom movement during 1947-48, who fought against Nizam Government for its merger into Union of India. The applications submitted by the petitioners for grant of pension under ‘Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme – 1980’ were returned back to the State Government by the Central Government for re- verification. During the pendency of the writ petition, in pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, re-verification was done, further reports were sent by the State Government and after considering the further reports, Government of India passed orders rejecting the request of the petitioners to grant pension on the ground that the petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence to prove their participation in the freedom struggle against the Nizam Government.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader represented that the first petitioner expired on 06.02.2012. In view of the same, this writ petition abates insofar as the first petitioner is concerned.
3. With reference to the second petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the reason for rejection of the claim for grant of pension of the second petitioner is on the ground that the second petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to prove his participation in the freedom struggle. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the second petitioner has sufficient evidence to show that he has participated in the freedom struggle and he has in fact participated in the freedom struggle and if liberty is granted to him, he will produce relevant material in support of his claim. As seen from the order impugned, the issue of entitlement of the second petitioner for grant of pension under ‘Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme – 1980’ was considered and by assigning valid reasons, his claim was rejected. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned is ex facie illegal warranting interference by this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the second petitioner to submit application afresh, if he has sufficient proof in support of his claim to show that he has participated in the freedom struggle. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 13th August, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.33979 of 2011 Date: 13th August, 2014 KL