C. Venkat Reddy & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

C. Venkat Reddy & Ors. ...Appellants

Versus

Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 293 OF 2006 WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 46 OF 2006

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Writ Petition (C) NO. 403 OF 2006 filed under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the `Constitution') has been filed by 25

petitioners claiming to be freedom fighters. They make a grievance that they

1 had applied for freedom fighters' pension under the Swatantrata Sainik

Samman Pension Scheme, 1983 (in short the `Scheme') but there has been

denial of the pension without any reason. It is stated that several special

screening committees constituted by the State have favourably recommended

their cases but nothing concrete has been done and the State Government also

has shown little interest in the matter. Similarly in Writ Petition No. 46 of

2006, 32 persons have made similar grievance. In each of these cases, the claim

is that the petitioner suffered imprisonment as a part of the freedom fight and

therefore is entitled to the pension.

2. Learned counsel for the Union of India and the Government of Andhra

Pradesh have filed details and have stated that so far as the Writ Petition No.

403 of 2002 is concerned, after a preliminary verification it was noted that 22

cases were found to be genuine cases and have been recommended. In case of

one Sh. Narayana Reddy, it was found that he was under age as on March,

1947 and he was not entitled to any benefit. It was also noted that two others

namely Sh. K.J. Shiva Nagaiah and Smt. Gangamma are dead and therefore

the question of making any recommendation does not arise. It is stated that on

the basis of the orders passed by this Court, 22 persons found to be prima

2 facie genuine are being paid pension with effect from 1.4.2002. This position

is accepted by learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. The object of the scheme was highlighted by this Court in Mukundlal

Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1993 SC 2127)

"The object was to honour and where it was necessary also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact, many of those who do not have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with which they plunged in the freedom struggle. The spirit of the scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind of a programme of compensation. Yet that may be the result if the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever the date the application is made. The Scheme should retain its high objective with which it was motivated..."

4. Again in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India (2001 AIR SCW 3843) this

Court observed as follows:

"It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by the scheme have suffered for the country about half a century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of

3 such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the scheme...."

5. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Mukundlal's

and Gurdial Singh's cases (supra). Genuine freedom fighters deserve to be

treated with reverence, respect and honour. But at the same time it cannot be

lost sight of that people who had no role to play in the freedom struggle should

not be permitted to benefit from the liberal approach required to be adopted in

the case of the freedom fighters, most of whom in the normal course are

septuagenarians and octogenarians. It baffles one, beyond comprehension, when

claim is made by a person who was not even born during the freedom struggle

to be a freedom fighter. Accepting claims of such persons to be freedom

fighters would be making a mockery of the scheme which is intended for

genuine freedom fighters.

6. The above position was highlighted in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State

of Maharashtra (2005(7) SCC 605).

7. For the reasons given above Writ Petition (C ) No. 403 of 2006 is

disposed of on the terms that in the 22 cases which have been found to be prima

facie genuine, let payment of pension be continued. It is made clear that if in

4 future any further action on the basis of materials is warranted, the same can be

taken in accordance with law.

8. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 293 OF 2006 and WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 46 OF 2006

9. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the Government of Andhra

Pradesh that the summary of events is as follows:

10. On 30.7.2005 the Govt. have entrusted to Director General, Vigilance &

Enforcement Deptt. A.P., Hyderabad, for enquiry.

11. On 12.6.2006 Director General, Vigilance & Enforcement Deptt. A.P.,

Hyderabad, has submitted report.

12. On 11.4.2007 the decision to conduct 100% re-verification has been

communicated to all the District Collectors-duly forming three Member

Committee.

13. A check list in consultation with the Govt. of India officials has also been

prepared and sent to the District Collectors for conducting re-verification.

5

14. On consultations with the officials of the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Home Affairs (FF Division), amendments to the Check list (already send) has

also been issued.

15. The process of re-verification was progressing rather slowly on account

of certain ground level problems in the villages.

16. On 4.4.2007 & 23.5.2007 the reasons (mentioned aboe) for delay for

furnishing of verification in respect of W.P.(C ) No. 403 of 2002 filed by Sr.

C.Venkat Reddy & Ors. have been communicated the A.O.R.

17. However the Govt. have received certain re-verification reports from the

Districts and they were forwarded to the Govt. of India but the Govt. of India

could not take any decision on the above cases.

18. On 19.9.2007 the Govt. of India have constituted a Screening Committee

of Eminent Freedom Fighters (SCEEF)- under the Chairmanship of Sri Konda

Laxman Bapuji, alongwith eight other Members, to scrutinize the re-verified

cases relating to Border Camp sufferings during Hyderbad Liberation

Movement.

6

19. On 28.9.2007 the Govt. of India have changed the earlier check list and

furnished a revised one for conducting re-verification of the cases.

20. As such on 7.12008 the Govt. of India have returned above 79 cases,

which were sent to them with earlier check list, with a request to conduct re-

verification based on their revised check list of 28.9.2007.

21. On 9.1.2008 first meeting of the Screening Committee of Eminent

Freedom Fighters is held.

22. The Govt. of A.P. have received about 350 proposals and forwarded

about 197 cases to Govt. of India.

23. On 18th and 19th February, 2008, second meeting of the Screenings

Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters is held and about 50 cases were

discussed.

24. On 27.3.2008, third meeting of the Screening Committee of Eminent

Freedom Fighters is held and about 15 cases were discussed.

7

25. Taking into account the various steps taken by the State of Andhra

Pradesh, we direct that the enquiry which is stated to be pending be completed

within two months. Immediately thereafter the report be submitted by the

concerned Ministry to the Union of India. On receipt of the report from the

State Government, the Union of India is directed to take necessary follow up

within a period of three months.

26. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

.................................J. (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

New Delhi:

May 08, 2009

8