THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.26134 of 2006 Between:
Muppidi Krishna Reddy PETITIONER AND
1. Union of India, rep. by its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Loknayak Bhavan, (Hyderabad FF Cell), New Delhi, and another.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges Lr.No.112/93/2004-FF(HC), dated 6.05.2005 of the 1st respondent whereunder and whereby the claim of the writ petitioner herein for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter called ‘the Scheme’) was rejected by the 1st respondent-Union of India.
2. Heard Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. Sameer Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Union of India and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for 2nd respondent-State of A.P.
3. According to the petitioner, he participated in Anti Nizam Government movement for merger of Hyderabad State into Indian Union. He made an application to the respondents on 17.07.2000 for grant of freedom fighters pension under the Scheme. As per the petitioner, the Government of A.P., after due verification, vide proceedings No.38721/FF-II-A(1)2003-1, dated 21.10.2003 recommended the case of the petitioner to the 1st respondent for grant of pension. The Union of India, the 1st respondent herein, issued proceedings No.112/93/2004- FF(HC) dated 6.05.2005 rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighters pension. Challenging the said proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Scheme, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. This Court ordered Rule Nisi on 15.12.2006 and in response of the same a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1st respondent- Union of India, denying the averments in the affidavit and justifying the impugned action. The said counter affidavit finds fault with the delay in filing the application by the petitioner herein.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighters pension is highly arbitrary, illegal and is opposed to the very Scheme framed by the Central Government. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on unsustainable and untenable grounds. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the very insistence of secondary evidence, when primary evidence is available on record, shows that the impugned action is unsustainable. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of
[1]
India .
6. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Union of India that since the petitioner did not fulfil the necessary conditions as stipulated under the Scheme, he is not entitled for the benefits under the Scheme.
7. The Union of India, with a laudable and sacred object, introduced the Scheme to safeguard the freedom fighters from the onslaught of the financial difficulties which they are exposed due to their sacrifices made during the freedom struggle. The benefit given by the Union of India under this Scheme is neither a gratis nor a charity and on the other hand the same is a right conferred on the freedom fighters, who sacrificed their lives, wealth, health and young age, for the purpose of liberating the country from the shekles of feudal and colonial forces. The instrumentalities of the State, while dealing with the cases of freedom fighters for pension, are required to keep these objects in mind. The claims of the freedom fighters should not be dealt with in a mechanical and routine manner.
8. In the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari (1 supra) at paragraph No.4, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under.
“Refusal on the part of the Government to grant pension to freedom fighters on the ground that the applications were filed after expiry of prescribed date is not justified. Neither the date of the application nor the date on which the required proof is furnished should make any difference to the entitlement of the benefit under the Scheme. Hence once the application is made, even if it is unaccompanied by the requisite eligibility data, the date on which it is made should be accepted as the date of the preferment of the claim whatever the date on which the proof of eligibility is furnished.”
9. It is also appropriate to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in the cases of Kamala Bai Sinkar v. State of Maharashtra
[2]
; Gurudial Singh v. Union of India
[3]
; and Bommakanti
[4]
Venkavva v. Union of India wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court categorically and in clear and unequivocal terms held that the standard of proof applicable for dealing with the claims of the freedom fighters should be on the basis of preponderance of probabilities but not on the touchstone of test of probability beyond reasonable doubt.
10. In the instant case, the petitioner herein, who is now in the evening of his life, made the application as long back as in 2000 and the State Government recommended his case for grant of freedom fighters pension in the year 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that along with the application he submitted order of detention passed by the Director General of Police, H.E.H. Nizam’s Government, Hyderabad, dated 11.06.57F. The list enclosed with the said order shows the name of the petitioner herein at Sl.No.50. As per the Scheme such certificate, produced and made available by the petitioner is a primary evidence as such the question of production of secondary evidence in support of the claim of the petitioner, by any stretch of imagination, does not arise. There is absolutely no justification on the part of the 1st respondent in saying that the petitioner herein did not file secondary evidence in support of his claim. There is also no justification on the part of the 1st respondent in observing that the primary evidence furnished in support of the claim has not been categorically verified to be authentic by the State Government and the doubts raised about the authenticity of the documents or list enclosed with the documents have not been satisfactorily replied by the state Government with regard to the claim of the petitioner. The grounds raised in the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this Court, are highly ambiguous and devoid of clarity. The manner and mode in which the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this court, do stand for the twin tests of reasonableness and rationality. This Court is of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the 1st respondent in the impugned order are not inconsonance with the very object and intention behind this sacred Scheme.
11. For the foregoing reasons and having regard to the principles laid down in the above referred judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings Lr.No.112/93/2004-FF(HC), dated 6.05.2005 of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is directed to sanction and pay the freedom fighters pension to the petitioner under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 from the date of his application i.e., 17.07.2000. Such exercise shall be completed and necessary orders shall be passed 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, WPMPs, if any shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
21st April, 2014 Js.
[1] AIR 1993 SC 2127
[2] (2012) 11 SCC 754;
[3] (2001) (8) SCC 8;
[4] 2013 (5) ALD 173