SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 75703

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
More Vijaya Laxmi – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India Freedom Fighters Division – Respondent
WP 43973/2016



THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.43973 of 2016

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:-

“to declare the action of the respondents in not granting and paying the pension is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and further direct the respondents to grant and pay the pension immediately along with all arrears from the date of the Scheme 1980.”

2. Brief facts stated in this writ petition are that petitioner claims that her father Sri.More Rama Rao, was freedom fighter who fought for the merger of Nizam State into Indian union. It is the case of the petitioner that Sri.More Rama Rao, is entitled for freedom fighter’s pension under Central Scheme, Swathantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 and vide application bearing No.112/4378/84/FF/HC(D), petitioner’s father had applied for freedom fighter’s pension in the year 1984. On 21.04.2003, petitioner’s father received letter, wherein he was directed to furnish certain documents in four sets and the same was furnished to the respondent authorities. However, On 18.10.2003, petitioner’s father expired and her mother Smt.More Sushila being legal representative applied for freedom fighter’s family pension. Pending the same, petitioner’s mother expired on 20.03.2016. Further case of the petitioner is that as per Rule 3 of the rules framed under the scheme 1980, petitioner is entitled for family pension, thus, the petitioner on 07.09.2016 and 27.09.2016 made representations and requested respondent No.3 to grant arrears and freedom fighter’s family pension to the petitioner. However, the same is not considered. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner’s father Late Sri More Rama Rao nor her mother late Smt More Sushila was granted freedom fighter’s pension and after their death, petitioner being unmarried and mentally ill health, applied for family pension, the same is also kept pending. Hence, pray this Court to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and pay arrears of freedom fighter’s pension and dependent family pension to the petitioner. 4. Learned standing counsel for Central Government submits that counter is filed on behalf of respondent No.1, wherein it is stated that the Samman Pension to freedom fighters is regulated under the provisions of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 and the guidelines issued thereunder from time to time including the Revised Policy Guidelines issued under F.No.45/03/2014-FF (P) dated 06.08.2014. Learned standing counsel has drawn attention of this Court to Paragraph No.1.5 of F.No.45/03/2014-FF (P) dated 06.08.2014, the same is extracted hereunder:-

“1.5 Sanction of pension after the death of Freedom Fighter:-

No pension shall be sanctioned in the name of the freedom fighter after his/her death even if his/her matter was under examination. This also entails that no life time arrears or dependent pension shall be sanctioned to his/her spouse/daughter after the death of the freedom fighter.”

5. Learned standing counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to copy of the Joint photograph of freedom fighter spouse and eligible dependent(s), wherein petitioner’s father clearly stated that eligible dependents as ‘NIL’. Learned standing counsel further submits that in view of the paragraph No.1.5 issued under F.No.45/03/2014-FF (P) dated 06.08.2014, petitioner is not eligible for dependent family pension as her father late Shri More Rama Rao was not granted freedom fighter pension during his life time and eventually pray this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.NVR Rajya Lakshmi, learned standing counsel for Central Government appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms.T.Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material available on r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top