THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI CONTEMPT CASE No.1431 of 2014 Between:
Vadla Veenaiah PETITIONER AND Y.P. Ojha, Deputy Secretary to the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Loknayak Bhavan, New Delhi.
RESPONDENT ORDER:
This is an application filed under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, complaining violation and disobedience of the orders dated 24.03.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.No.5923 of 2007.
2. Heard Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. S. Nanda, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. The petitioner filed W.P.No.5923 of 2007 before this Court, seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider his case for granting pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, with effect from the date of application, in the light of letter No.108920/FF.II-A(2)/2006-06, dated 23.03.2006. This Court by way of an order dated 24.03.2014 disposed of the writ petition, directing the 1st respondent-Union of India to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme in pursuance of the letter No.108920/FF.II-A(2)/2006-06, dated 23.03.2006 of the 2nd respondent-State Government.
4. In response to the notice issued by this Court, a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent-Union of India, denying the averments and allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case. It is stated in the said counter affidavit that the claim of the petitioner is considered in compliance of the directions of this Court and a speaking order is passed in proceedings No.112/1053/97-FF (HC), Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, dated 28.07.2014. A copy of the said letter is also placed on record by the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India. A perusal of the said letter shows that the respondent herein rejected the claim of the petitioner by assigning certain reasons.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent passed the order of rejection in an arbitrary and illegal manner and not in terms of the orders of this Court.
6. Per contra, it is vehemently contended by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that in compliance of the orders of this Court the authorities passed the order of rejection dated 28.07.2014 by assigning cogent and convincing reasons. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that in view of the said order of rejection, the present contempt case is liable to be closed and if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he can file another writ petition questioning the said order of rejection dated 28.07.2014.
7. As evident from the order of rejection, the respondent herein passed the said order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner by assigning certain reasons. In the considered opinion of this Court, the validity or otherwise of the said reasons cannot be scrutinised in the present contempt case. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, it is always open for the petitioner to assail the said order of rejection by way of filing a separate writ petition.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Contempt Case is closed and the respondent herein stands discharged. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to question the order of rejection passed by the respondent in proceedings No.112/1053/97-FF (HC), Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, dated 28.07.2014 by way of another writ petition.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
16th October, 2014 Js.