Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 8 (KAR)

GURAPPA BENUR v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

2003-01-02

body2003
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the letter dated 16. 10. 2000 (Annexure-L) of the 1st respondent. Further the petitioner sought a direction directing the respondents to consider his application dated 22. 03. 2001 (Annexure-M) and grant pension under the Swathantrata Sanman Pension Scheme from the date of his original application i. e. w. e. f. 10. 11. 1987 at the rates as applicable from time to time along with arrears of pension and interest at the rat of 18% from the date of application till the date of payment. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to be a Freedom fighter who participated in the Hyderabad Freedom Struggle. He applied to the Central Government for pension under Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension scheme. His application was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 25. 1. 1982. By communication dated 8. 2. 1993 it has been rejected on the ground that the application is time barred and it is not supported by any documentary evidence from the official records. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court in W. P. No. 14589/1999 which had come up for hearing on 6th March 2000. This court has allowed the said writ petition and quashed the order dated 8. 2. 1993 and permitted the petitioner to represent the application for pension with necessary documents to the 1st respondent. Further this court has directed the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the same in terms of the scheme within six months from the date of the receipt of the application. After the disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner has filed application along with necessary documents. Instead of considering the same in accordance with the scheme, the 1st respondent through its letter dated 16. 10. 2000 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the State Government has not recommended the petitioners case, without a specific recommendation from the State Government and other deficiencies, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered or he is entitled for grant of central pension. Further, it is stated in the said letter that the ministry is however ready to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, if he furnish the required evidence duly verified by the state Government. Assailing the correctness so the said letter dated 16. 10. 2000, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. Further, it is stated in the said letter that the ministry is however ready to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, if he furnish the required evidence duly verified by the state Government. Assailing the correctness so the said letter dated 16. 10. 2000, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior standing counsel for 1st respondent and learned counsel for 2nd respondent at a considerable length of time, reassessed the entire matter with the assistance of learned counsel for all the parties. ( 4 ) THE principal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, a specific direction was issued by this court in its order dated 6th March 2001 in writ petition No. 14589/1999 and in pursuance of that, the petitioner has filed his application along with authenticated certificate as required under Sub-clause (b) of Clause 2. 3 of Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme 1980. This aspect of the matter is not at all considered by the 1st respondent. If the direction issued by this court and clause 2. 3 sub clause (b) of clause 2. 3 of the scheme are taken into consideration, the petitioner is entitled for a pension. Without going through the relevant provisions as stated supra, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent on a technical ground stating that the State Government has not specifically sent recommendations for grant of pension. If the petitioner has undergone imprisonment and underground for more than six months then only he is entitled for pension. The said reasoning assigned by the 1st respondent is contrary to the material records. She vehemently submitted that as per sub-clause (b) of Clause 2. 3 of the scheme, the petitioners case falls within its purview. So far as the recommendation of the Government is concerned, that has been accepted by the Central Ministry but it is stated that there is no specific recommendation from the State Government and on above deficiencies 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the reasoning assigned by the 1st respondent is contrary to the material on records and it is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the reasoning assigned by the 1st respondent is contrary to the material on records and it is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent filed his statement of objection justifying the letter issued by the 1st respondent. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs MANOHARLAL AZAD AND ANOTHER and stated that the minimum requirement for grant of pension is that the petitioner must undergo six months imprisonment or six months underground. But he is unable to persuade this court that as per Sub-clause (b) of Clause 2. 3 of the scheme the petitioner is not entitled for pension under the said scheme. With regard to this aspect, the 1st respondent has not stated anything in his statement of objections. ( 6 ) AS rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the request of the petitioner falls under the purview of Sub-clause (b) of Clause 2. 3 of the Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension scheme 1980. It is not in dispute that the State Government has forwarded the petitioners case for consideration to the Central Government and it has already sanctioned the pension to the petitioner and he is availing the same. However, the 1st respondent has stated in the impugned letter that the State Government has not specifically forwarded the recommendation to the Central Government to consider the request of the petitioner and petitioner has failed to produce the necessary documents along with his application to show that he has undergone imprisonment for six months or underground for six moths. Except this, nothing more is forthcoming in the letter The 1st respondent has not taken into consideration the entire scheme introduced by the Central Government. Sub clause (b) of Clause 2. Except this, nothing more is forthcoming in the letter The 1st respondent has not taken into consideration the entire scheme introduced by the Central Government. Sub clause (b) of Clause 2. 3 of Swatantrata Sainik Sanman pension scheme 1980 clearly states as follows;in case records of the relevant period are not available, secondary evidences in the form of a Personal knowledge certificate (PKC) from a prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering a of a minimum two years and who happened to be from the same administrative unit could be considered provided the State Government/union Territory Administration concerned, after due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certifies that documentary evidence from the official records in support of the claimed sufferings were not available. ( 7 ) IF the case of the petitioner is taken into consideration under Sub-Clause (b) of Clause 2. 3 of the scheme as state above, he has prima facie made out a case for granting pension under the said scheme. Instead of taking into consideration the entire scheme, the 1st respondent on a technical ground rejected the request of the petitioner. However, it has been stated that the Ministry is ready to consider the claim of the petitioner, if in case petitioner furnishes the required evidence. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, taking not consideration the statement made by the 1st respondent in its letter that Ministry is however ready to consider the petitioners claim if he furnish the required evidence and also to meet the ends of justice, the following directions are to be issued to the respondents 1 and 2 for considering the matter a fresh. 1. The 2nd respondent herein is directed to send the specific recommendation for considering the request of the petitioner for granting of pension as enunciated under the Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme 1980 under Sub-clause (b) of Clause 2. 3, as expeditiously as possible within two months from the date of the receipt of this order. 2. The 1st respondent herein is directed to consider the request of the petitioner within 3 months from the date of the receipt of the recommendations from the 2nd respondent along with the material documents made available by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders taking into consideration Sub-clause (b) of Clause 2. 2. The 1st respondent herein is directed to consider the request of the petitioner within 3 months from the date of the receipt of the recommendations from the 2nd respondent along with the material documents made available by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders taking into consideration Sub-clause (b) of Clause 2. 3 of the scheme within 2 months thereafter. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 are further directed to consider the case of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit as stated supra having regard to the status and age of the petitioner. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 16. 10. 2002 is hereby set aside and matter stand remitted back for reconsideration with the above directions. The Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today. --- *** --- .