Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 160 (AP)

Bommakanti Venkavva v. Union of India

2013-03-05

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2013
ORDER This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to call for the records pertaining to proceeding No. 112/5982/86/FF(HC), dated 9.5.2011, issued by respondent No. 1 and to quash the same. 2. I have heard Mr. K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. 3. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner, who is the widow of an alleged freedom fighter, has been struggling for getting freedom fighters pension from the year 2002. The petitioner is made to approach this Court earlier by way of WP No. 26175 of 2008. This Court has disposed of the said writ petition, by order, dated 1.12.2008, directing respondent No. 1 to consider the recommendations made by respondent No. 2, and to release the Central Freedom Fighters’ Pension forthwith as contemplated under the Scheme. As this direction was not complied with by respondent No. 1, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 1386 of 2009. During the pendency of the said Contempt Case, respondent No. 1 issued proceeding, dated 25.1.2010, returning the file to respondent No. 2 with a direction to him to submit a fresh re-verification report after rectification of the deficiencies and re-examination of the claim as per the policy guidelines. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 vide its Letter No. 29746/FF-II(A2)2009-1, dated 13.12.2010, submitted re-verification report afresh, along with which as many as 16 documents were forwarded by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1. Purporting to consider the said report, respondent No. 1 has issued the impugned proceeding rejecting the petitioner's claim for pension with the following cryptic endorsement. "The PK Certifier, who has issued the certification (namely Donakonda Gopal Reddy) expired on 30.5.2005. Hence, the certificate issued by him is not acceptable. The applicant may be advised to obtain fresh PKC from a Central Government freedom fighter, from the same district." Respondent No. 2 was further directed to forward a fresh re-verification report as per the policy guidelines, dated 10.9.2009. 4. The grievance of the petitioner, which I find is rightful, is that the rejection of her application by respondent No. 1 is not only casual but also without proper application of mind. 4. The grievance of the petitioner, which I find is rightful, is that the rejection of her application by respondent No. 1 is not only casual but also without proper application of mind. As rightly pleaded by the petitioner, the policy guidelines, dated 10.9.2009, which I have carefully perused, have nowhere laid down that if a person, who issued the Personal Knowledge Certificate (PK Certificate), dies by the time of consideration of the application for sanction of pension, the applicant has to obtain a fresh PK Certificate from somebody else. If this reasoning is accepted, freedom fighters' pension can never be granted even to a bona fide freedom fighter or his widow, if by the time his/her application is considered, the person, who has issued the PK Certificate, was not alive. Such an approach apart from being irrational is wholly arbitrary. The approach of respondent No. 1 appears as if he wanted to find a pretext to reject the petitioner's application. It is not as if respondent No. 1 has examined genuineness of the PKC issued by the deceased co-freedom fighter i.e. Donakonda Gopal Reddy and that therefore, the necessity for the petitioner to obtain a fresh PKC from another freedom fighter has arisen. The petitioner being 79 years of old lady and the widow of a person, who was stated to have been a freedom fighter, cannot be made to suffer the unnecessary ordeals due to the patently arbitrary approach of respondent No. 1. The insistence on production of a fresh PK Certificate as a condition for considering the petitioner's application does not stand scrutiny of this Court as such a condition is totally extraneous to the very Scheme and also the guidelines on which respondent No. 1 has placed reliance for rejection of the petitioner's application. Having framed the Scheme for honouring the freedom fighters in recognition of their selfless services for liberation of the State of Hyderabad, the State cannot meet out a raw deal to the genuine freedom fighters and their widows. The petitioner, who has obviously drained of her energies at this advanced age, is not expected to fight the legal battle round after round. It is time that respondent No. 1 treats the applicants with respect, rationality and reasonableness instead of rejecting the applications on jejune grounds. 5. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order in proceeding No. 112/5982/86-FF(HC), dated 9.5.2011 is set aside. It is time that respondent No. 1 treats the applicants with respect, rationality and reasonableness instead of rejecting the applications on jejune grounds. 5. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order in proceeding No. 112/5982/86-FF(HC), dated 9.5.2011 is set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to forthwith reconsider the petitioner's application for grant of freedom fighters’ pension without insisting on a fresh PK Certificate and communicate its decision to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 7. As a sequel, WPMP No. 7991 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief stands closed.