Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Telangana) 427

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Gollapudi Varamma – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India & others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.9800 of 2020
Decided on : 29-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.K.Prabhakar Rao
For the Respondents: Mr.G.Praveen Kumar

The revised policy guidelines of 2014 cannot be applied retrospectively to deny relief to the petitioner, and the delay in processing the petitioner's application cannot be attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner's right to life and livelihood under Article 32 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied.

Headnote:
FREEDOM FIGHTER PENSION - SWATANTRA SAINIK SAMMAN SCHEME, 1980 - REVISED POLICY GUIDELINES, 2014 - SECTION 1.5 - APPLICABILITY - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - DELAY IN PROCESSING APPLICATION - APPLICANT'S RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIVELIHOOD - ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner's husband applied for a pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Scheme, 1980, and the Special Screening Committee recommended his application for sanction of pension. The 2nd respondent directed the State Government to inquire into the identity and genuinity of the records submitted by the petitioner's husband. The State Government submitted a report recommending the grant of Freedom Fighters Pension to the petitioner's husband. However, the petitioner's husband passed away during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioner applied for a pension as a dependent of her husband, but her application was rejected by the 2nd respondent citing the revised policy guidelines of 2014, which state that no pension shall be sanctioned in the name of a freedom fighter after his/her death.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the revised policy guidelines of 2014 cannot be applied retrospectively to deny relief to the petitioner. The Court also held that the delay in processing the petitioner's application cannot be attributed to the petitioner and that her right to life and livelihood under Article 32 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied.
Issues: 1. Whether the revised policy guidelines of 2014 can be applied retrospectively to deny relief to the petitioner? 2. Whether the delay in processing the petitioner's application can be attributed to the petitioner? 3. Whether the petitioner's right to life and livelihood under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can be denied?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The revised policy guidelines of 2014 cannot be applied retrospectively to deny relief to the petitioner because they have no applicability to the case on hand since the guidelines cannot have retrospective effect. 2. The delay in processing the petitioner's application cannot be attributed to the petitioner since the application was pending with the respondents for a long time. 3. The petitioner's right to life and livelihood under Article 32 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied, and the Court has the power to grant relief even in cases of delay.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the petitioner's application in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice within four weeks.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. G.Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and 4.

2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in rejection of pension to the petitioner vide orders dated 10.06.2020 in File No:52/CC/1/2018-FF (HC-C) in pursuance to para 1.5 of the Freedom Fighters Pension, Revised Policy Guidelines, dated 06.08.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and against the Article 14 of Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and violation of Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 and the Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980 and against the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in similar matters and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to sanction the pension considering the application in File no. 112/944/97 and representations of the petitioner dated 22.06.2005, 25.09.2017 in favour of petitioner as dependant of Late G. Gopal Rao.

3. The case of the Petitioner as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition in brief, are as follows:

a) The petitioner’s late husband had submitted an application before the 2nd respondent vide File No. 112/944/97 for sanction of pension under Swatantra Sainik Sanman Scheme, 1980 on account of his suffering during freedom struggle and the Special Screening Committee was pleased to consider the petitioner’s husband application and passed an unanimous resolution and recommended to the Government of India for sanction of pension vide its Agenda Serial No.273 dated 05.01.1997.

b) Thereafter, the 2nd respondent in pursuance of the said recommendation, further directed the 3rd respondent, State Government vide letter No.112/2/2003 F.F. (HC) Misc., dated 26.05.2003 to enquire into identity and genuinity of records submitted by the petitioner’s husband and sought for a report. Accordingly, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue, (F.F.I) Department vide letter No.1366/FF.I/A2/2804-1 dated 30.01.2004 enquired and submitted a report to the 2nd respondent duly recommending for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension to the petitioner’s husband.

c) Subsequently, the petitioner’s husband passed away on 17.05.2005 during the pendency of the pension application proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Freedom Fighter Pension as dependent of political sufferer, under Swatantra Sainik Sanman Scheme 1980, and had filed an application on 24.06.2005 before the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s case for grant of pension on account of her husband’s sufferings in pursuance of pending application vide File No.112/944/97.

d) However, there was no response from the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P No. 4224 of 2017 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 06.02.2020, directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent passed orders on 10.06.2020, rejecting the application of the petitioner as per para 1.5 of circular orders issued revising the provisions of Swathanthra Sainik Samman Yojana, 1980. The 2nd respondent contended that since no Freedom Fighters Pension was sanctioned to the petitioner’s husband during his life time, as such the dependent is not entitled for family pension as per para 1.5 of the revised policy guidelines dated 06.08.2014 and further that there is some discrepancy in the name of the petitioner’s father-in-law. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in brief, indicates the stand of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as under:

a) The claim of the Petitioner's husband for pension was received by the Ministry through State Government vide letter dated 17.02.2003, which was returned back to the State Gov