HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 22954 of 2012 Date: 30.7.2014 Between :
Smt Menthula Chilakamma W/o LateM Agaiah R/o Thattupalli village, Kuravi mandal Warangal ditrict and … Petitioner The Govt of India, Rep by its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, Loknayak bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi-3 and another … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 22954 of 2012 ORDER:
Petitioner claims that her husband participated in freedom movement against Nizam Government for its annexation to Union of India during the year 1947-48 under the leadership of Sri B Ranganayakulu of Venkatapur camp. Such an application for grant of pension was made by her husband and after his demise, petitioner pursued the same. The request for grant of pension was rejected by Government of India by letter No. 112/86645/97- FF(HC) dated 7.5.2012, impugned in this writ petition.
2. The request of the petitioner for grant of pension was rejected on two grounds; firstly, the Personal Knowledge Certificate/Co-Freedom Fighters Certificate did not indicate the specific details of the authority, cases which necessitated the underground/border camp suffering and period of underground/border camp and secondly that there was variation in the camp in which petitioner participated in the freedom fight movement i.e., in the original application, petitioner mentioned border camp as ‘Chanda’, whereas State Government’s verified report mentioned the border camp as ‘Venkatapuram. Challenging the said order, this writ petition is instituted.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner’s husband had participated in the freedom movement in underground camp and after due verification of the relevant record, State Government recommended for sanction of the pension and once State Government recommends the Government of India is bound to accept such recommendations. The contradictions noticed by the Government of India are only minor in nature. In fact with reference to camp where petitioner participated in the movement, erroneously wrong mention was made in the State Government recommendations but the documents support the stand of the petitioner that he has participated in Venkatapur camp. The Personal Knowledge Certificate/ Co-Freedom Fighter Certificate was validly issued and merely because the relevant details are not incorporated, cannot be a ground to reject when all other material point out that husband of the petitioner participated in the freedom movement.
4. Learned standing counsel representing Government of India submits that the claim of the petitioner was duly considered and rejected having found that claim of husband of the petitioner does not even fit into the secondary evidence and found to be ineligible to give benefit of doubt as the basic facts which requires for consideration of grant of pension by giving benefit of doubt are not satisfied and the variations noticed are fatal to the claim. She further submitted that the recommendations made by the State Government are only recommendatory and not binding on the Central Government and it is for the Central Government to examine the claim and take a decision. In support of her contention that the recommendations of the State Government are not binding on the Central Government, she placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4684 of 2006 dated 29.5.2012.
5. As seen from the order impugned in this writ petition, on through verification of the recommendations, the Government of India noticed that basic particulars of sufferings of the petitioner’s husband were not available for grant of benefit of pension under the scheme. The benefit of pensions under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 is extended to such of those persons who have genuinely participated in the freedom struggle. Initially stringent conditions were imposed for grant of pension, however, having realized that many freedom fighters though participated in the freedom fight in various parts of the country and against erstwhile Nizam Government, but the official records do not disclose their participation, the official records contain only those names against whom prosecution was launched; were detained or were killed, relaxed standards were prescribed for grant of pension. Many of them have participated in the freedom movement underground and as part of camps maintained by leaders.
6. On scrutiny of the claims which have come from various parts of the country, Government of India noticed even fictitious claims are made and therefore, guidelines are stipulated in the year 2009. The guidelines mandate the Personal Knowledge Certificate/ Co-Freedom Fighter certificate should indicate the specific details of the authority, cases which necessitated the underground/border camp suffering etc. These essential details were not provided in the certificate furnished in favour of the petitioner. Thus, petitioner’s claim for grant of pension did not satisfy even the relaxed standards. Proposal made by the Government of A.P. is only recommendatory in nature and is not binding on the Central Government. Central Government is entitled to independently consider the claim with reference to parameters prescribed and pass appropriate orders. In the instant case, having considered the claim of the petitioner and having found that husband of the petitioner is not satisfying even the relaxed standards for grant of pension, the claim was rejected. It cannot be said that rejection was erroneous and illegal warranting interference of this Court. I therefore see no error in the decision rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighter pension on the ground that her husband participated in the freedom movement against the then Nizam Government.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sequel to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any stand dismissed.
P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE: 30.07.2014 TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 22954 of 2012 Date: 30.7.2014