1. Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the appellant. Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents No.3 and 4.
2. This intra court appeal is filed against the order dated 25.08.2014 passed in W.P.No.22257 of 2007 by which the proceeding dated 27.08.2007, rejecting the claim of the respondent No.1 for grant of freedom fighter pension, has been quashed. In addition, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to grant the freedom fighter pension in favour of the respondent No.2, namely the widow of the respondent No.1, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the deceased respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the freedom fighter”) filed an application on 13.11.1985 seeking grant of freedom fighter pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”). The aforesaid application was rejected by an order dated 29.06.1994 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, inter alia, on the ground that the same was filed after the prescribed date. The freedom fighter’s application was placed before the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee on 27.07.1997. The State Government, vide report dated 24.09.2002, held that the freedom fighter is not entitled for pension under the Scheme. On the basis of the report forwarded by the State Government, the claim of the freedom fighter was rejected.
4. The freedom fighter thereupon filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.22364 of 2004, in which the inaction of the appellant in considering his claim for grant of pension under the Scheme was assailed. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 06.12.2004 with a direction to the appellant to consider the claim of the freedom fighter. Thereafter, the State Government issued a notice to the freedom fighter to appear before the authority along with the documents in support of his claim for grant of pension. However, despite the fact that a detailed report was sent to the Central Government, no action in the matter was taken. Thereafter, the freedom fighter again filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.18815 of 2005. The said writ petition was disposed of on 29.08.2005 with a direction to the State Government to complete the enquiry within eight weeks and to submit a report.
5. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the District Collector submitted a report to the Revenue Department of the Government. The State Government in its report dated 12.04.2006 informed the Government of India that the freedom fighter is entitled to pension under the Scheme. However, by an order dated 27.08.2007, the claim of the freedom fighter was rejected. The said order was challenged in the writ petition. The freedom fighter has expired during the pendency of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by impugned order dated 25.08.2014, quashed the order dated 27.08.2007 and directed the appellant to grant the freedom fighter pension in favour of the respondent No.2, namely the widow of the freedom fighter, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. In the aforesaid factual background, this intra court appeal is filed.
6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that there is neither any primary nor any secondary evidence. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in quashing the order dated 27.08.2007 and directing the appellant to grant pension to the widow of the freedom fighter.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and have perused the record.
8. Admittedly, the State Government in its report dated 12.04.2006 has found that the freedom fighter was entitled to pension under the Scheme. In addition to the aforesaid, in paragraph 14 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has held as under:
“14. Another significant aspect, which needs mention, is that there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the fact that the 1st respondent sanctioned pension to the similarly situated 37 individuals. In the opinion of this Court, the action of the 1st respondent in denying the same benefit to the petitioner, undoubtedly, tantamounts to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
9. Even in this appeal, no explanation has been offered on behalf of the appellant as to why differential treatment was meted out to the freedom fighter and his claim for pension was negatived under the Scheme, when the benefit of pension has been extended to similarly situate 37 individuals. The finding with regard to entitlement of pension to the freedom fighter is based on material available on record and is a plausible view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court, which does not call for any interference in this intra court appeal.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
