Kurapati Venkateshwarlu vs Union Of India And 2 Others

Heard Mrs. Sujatha Kurapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Jithender, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

CASE OF THE PETITIONER:

i) The petitioner claims that he is a freedom fighter as he claims to have fought against the Nizam Government for its merger into Union of India during 1947-48. He claims to have participated in the freedom movement. When the Nizam Police wanted to arrest him, he went underground. He also claims to have worked under the leadership of Sri Kamma Jaggaiah, who was Camp In-charge of Mangollu Camp, Nandigama Taluq, Krishna District.

ii) The Government of India had formulated a Scheme i.e., Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension (SSSP) Scheme 1980’, to provide financial assistance to the freedom fighters. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner had applied for grant of pension on 05.02.1984 along with necessary particulars. As the same was not considered, he made another representation on 27.06.1994 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 which was numbered as file No.112/173/92.

iii) Since no action has been taken, the petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.14225 of 1997 and the same was disposed of by order dated 14.11.1997 directing him to furnish fresh information to respondent No.2 therein i.e., the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of order, and on receipt of such information, respondent No.2 therein shall scrutinize the claim and place it before the Screening Committee for grant of pension within a period of ten (10) weeks thereafter. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner had furnished the information to respondent No.2 therein through registered post with acknowledgment due and the same was received by it.

iv) While the things stood thus, respondent No.1 vide D.O.No.282/SR/HC/99-FF(HC), dated 01.05.2001 had framed revised guidelines regarding modification of Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) in respect of participates in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement 1947-48 whose cases were recommended by the erstwhile Hyderabad Special Screening Committee (HSSC) for the purpose of grant of Central Samman Scheme. The Statement considering the facts and circumstances, had been decided that PKC issued by a Central Freedom Fighter having proven jail suffering of six months or more may be accepted in respect of claims of Samman Pension already recommended by the erstwhile HSSC. Further, where such a certifier is not available in the District of the applicant, such certificate may be accepted even from a freedom fighter of a neighbouring district who fulfils the prescribed criteria.

v) Pursuant to the said revised guidelines, the petitioner furnished the required information to respondent No.3 herein, who in turn vide its letter Rc.No.SpC6/161/2003, dated 17.09.2003 informed respondent no.2 that the documents submitted by the petitioner have been verified and found genuine. Accordingly, respondent No.2 addressed letter dated No.41959/FF.I/A/2003-1, dated 14.10.2003 to the Deputy Secretary to Government, of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (FF Division), New Delhi, recommending 45 cases for grant of freedom fighters pension including the name of the petitioner herein along with required documents. Despite the said recommendation, respondent No.1 did not choose to consider for grant of pension. Therefore, the petitioner herein filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.36297 of 2014 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 27.10.2016 directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 14.10.2013 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of the order.

vi) Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.1 addressed a letter dated 16.02.2017 to respondent No.2 marking a copy to the petitioner to furnish certain documents. In fact, the information/documents sought to be submitted were already furnished to respondent No.1 by respondent No.2 through letter dated 14.01.2003. However, once again, the petitioner furnished the said information to respondent No.1 on 27.02.2017.

vii) However, pursuant to the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by this Court in W.P. No.36297 of 2014, respondent No.1 has passed order dated 19.06.2017 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his case was not recommended by the HSSC. It was further mentioned that the petitioner has not submitted any primary evidence in support of his claim. He has also not produced valid and acceptable secondary evidence in the form of PKC from a freedom fighter with minimum two years proven jail suffering and a valid Non-Availability of Record Certificate (NARC) and also not produced any valid documentary evidence as per eligibility criteria under the Scheme.

viii) The petitioner claims that the grounds for rejection of his claim are incorrect for the following reasons:

(a) HSSC recommendations are confidential and the same were sent to respondent No.2. Basing on the said recommendations and as per the revised guidelines of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 has made inquiry through respondent No.3 and sent the verification report to respondent No.1 vide letter dated 14.10.2003 in which, it is clearly mentioned by respondent No.2 that the documents submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.3 were verified and found genuine and accordingly recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighters pension under SSSPS, 1980.

(b)  Despite  availability  of  recommendations  of  HSSC,  the petitioner has placed secondary evidence of declaring him as ‘proclaimed offender’. He has submitted the order of arrest of accused in Criminal Case No.39/2 of 1357 F, dated 18th Bahman, 1357F.

(c) Regarding submission of certificate from co-freedom fighters, two certificates of co-freedom fighters, namely Mr. Jamalapuru Viswanatha Rao and Gurram Achaiah were submitted.

(d) Regarding the objection as to imprisonment of co-prisoners is only 6 months 15 days instead of two (02) years, as per the revised guidelines of 2001, it was decided by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh to accept PKC issued by Central Freedom Fighter having proven jail suffering of six (06) months or more in respect of claims of Samman Pension already recommended by the erstwhile HSSC.

ix) In similar circumstances, this Court has already considered the case for grant of freedom fighter pension vide order in W.P.M.P. No.48833 of 2012 in W.P. No.38506 of 2012. The petitioner also falls under the very same category and, therefore, he sought a direction to respondent No.1 to grant freedom fighter pension to him.

x) In support of the same, he has also placed reliance on the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.No.7498 of 2021.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.1:

Respondent No.1 filed counter opposing the relief sought by the petitioner and further contended as under:

i) First of all, the writ petition is not maintainable as the same was filed to misuse the process of law in view of filing the earlier writ petitions viz., W.P. No.14225 of 1997 seeking to consider the claim of the petitioner and the same was disposed of by order dated 14.11.1997 with a direction to the respondents to place the claim of the petitioner before the Screening Committee for consideration. In compliance of the said directions, the claim of the petitioner was placed before the erstwhile Hyderabad Special Screening Committee, which did not recommend the case of the petitioner due to inadequate evidence.

ii) The petitioner filed another writ petition vide W.P. No.36297 of 2014 seeking to consider the claim of the petitioner for freedom fighter pension contending that the Central Government did not consider his claim despite sending the verification report dated 14.10.2003 by the State Government. The same was disposed of vide order dated 27.10.2016 directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.10.2013 and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

iii) Pursuant to the said orders, since respondent No.1 could not get the representation of the petitioner dated 14.10.2013 as well as the verification report dated 14.10.2003, it had requested the Statement Government and the petitioner vide letters dated 16.01.2017, 16.02.2017, 18.04.2017 and 23.05.2017, to provide copies of the aforesaid verification report and representation respectively. Accordingly, the State Government vide letter dated 20.05.2017 had provided copy of letter dated 14.10.2003 and other relevant documents.

iv) After examining the documents provided by the State Government, it was observed that the claim of the petitioner has not been recommended by HSSC, as such, the same was considered under the normal provisions of SSS Yojana, for which the petitioner has to furnish valid documentary evidence either through primary evidence or through secondary evidence in support of his claim. But, the petitioner failed to do so and, therefore, his claim was rejected by respondent No.1 vide order dated 19.06.2017 with the following reasons:

a) No primary evidence was furnished by the petitioner in support of his claim in the form of Government/Court order proclaiming him as an absconder, announcing award on head or ordering arrest and in order to evade arrest, he went underwent;

b) In the absence of primary evidence, the petitioner had not even submitted any valid secondary evidence. He had not furnished a valid and acceptable Non-Availability of Record Certificate (NARC) issued by the State Government and in the absence of same, PKC cannot even be considered as secondary evidence as it can only be considered when PKC is accompanied by a valid NARC;

c) The petitioner has also not furnished a valid and acceptable PKC from a freedom fighter, who have himself proven jail suffering of minimum two (02) years as per the provisions of the SSS Yojana, 1980.

v) After rejection of the claim, the petitioner never approached respondent No.1 nor made any representation for almost five (05) years, and filed the present writ petition challenging the rejection order dated 19.06.2017.

vi) As per the provisions of SSS Yojana, a person who on account of his participation in freedom struggle remained underground for six months or more provided he was a proclaimed offender; or, one on whom an award for arrest/head was announced; or one whose detention order was issued but not served. The petitioner herein who claims that he went underground in order to evade arrest, no evidence is placed regarding any Government/Court order has been specified that would have triggered him going underground.

vii) Therefore, the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief as he has not satisfied any one of the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Scheme.

viii) With the aforesaid contentions, respondent No.1 sought to dismiss the writ petition.

ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) The petitioner herein claims that he is a freedom fighter and, therefore, he is eligible for grant of pension under SSSP Scheme, 1980. The reasons for considering him as a freedom fighter are that on the call given by the State Congress Committee during 1947-48, the merger of erstwhile Hyderabad State in the Indian Union, he had taken active part by conducting procession and hoisting National Flag on the School Building in his village and neighbouring villages. On account of his anti-Government activities, the Nizam Police wanted to arrest him, on knowing the same, he went underground and worked under the leadership of Sri Kamma Jaggaiah, who was the Camp In-charge of Mangolu Camp, Nandigama Taluq of Krishna District. In support of the same, he had filed orders of arrest dated 18th Bahman 1357 F issued by the Administrator (Nazim) which is in Urdu Language along with its English translated copy, wherein the name of the petitioner is also finding. Based on the said document, the petitioner applied for grant of pension on 05.02.1984 along with necessary particulars. He also made further representation on 27.06.1994 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 in File No.112/173/92.

ii) Perusal of the record would reveal that thereafter the petitioner herein along with two (02) others had filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.14225 of 1997 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their application and recognize them as freedom fighters and pay them monthly pension and all other incidental benefits under the SSSP Scheme, 1980. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 14.11.1997 directing the petitioners therein to furnish fresh information to respondent No.2 therein giving all relevant particulars within a period of one (01) month and on such information, respondent No.2 shall scrutinize their claims and place it before the Screening Committee for the purpose of considering their claim within a period of ten (10) weeks from thereafter.

iii) Pursuant to the aforesaid order, according to the petitioner, he had submitted required information to respondent No.2 therein. While so, respondent No.1 vide D.O.No.282/SR/HC/99-FF(HC), dated 01.05.2001, had framed revised guidelines regarding modification of PKC in respect of participates of Hyderabad Liberation Movement 1947-48 whose cases were recommended by the erstwhile HSSC for the purpose of grant of Central Samman Pension. Pursuant to the said revised guidelines, basing on the information furnished by the petitioner, respondent No.3 vide its letter dated 17.02.2003 had recommended the names to respondent No.2, who in turn vide letter dated 14.10.2003, submitted the same to the Deputy Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (FF. Division), New Delhi. Since the said recommendations were not considered, again the petitioner herein had filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.36297 of 2014 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 27.10.2016 directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 14.10.2013 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) moths from the date of receipt of order.

iv) Perusal of the record would also reveal that after passing the said order, respondent No.1 had addressed a letter dated 16.02.2017 to respondent No.2 to furnish certain documents. Accordingly, the petitioner had furnished the said information on 27.02.2017. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.36297 of 2014, respondent No.1 considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected his claim for grant of freedom fighter pension on the ground that his case was not recommended by the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee. Challenging the said rejection, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition.

v) It is relevant to note that when respondent No.1 had rejected the claim of the petitioner in the month of June, 2017, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2022 challenging such rejection. There is no explanation, much less plausible explanation for the delay of about five (05) years in filing the present writ petition. In this context, it is the contention of respondent No.1 that after rejection of the claim of the petitioner vide letter dated 19.06.2017, neither the petitioner approached them, nor made any representation and that straight away approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Though the petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter filed by respondent No.2, he did not deny the said contention and on the other hand maintained silence on the said aspect.

vi) In view of the above discussion, now it has to be seen whether respondent No.1 was right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighters pension and that the petitioner is entitled for such pension?

vii) Perusal of the record would reveal that the Central Government constituted HSSC to scrutinize applications of persons who claimed suffering in the border camps during the Hyderabad Movement spanning the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. The essential evidentiary requirement in HSSC cases was the valid HSSC recommendation slip/report. In the case on hand, the claim of the petitioner has not been recommended by the HSSC due to inadequate evidence and, therefore, his claim was rejected. Whereas, the petitioner contends that HSSC recommendations are confidential and the same were sent to respondent No.2, who in turn made inquiry through respondent No.3 and sent the Verification Report to respondent vide letter No.41969/FF.I/2003-1, dated 14.10.2003, wherein it is categorically mentioned, which is as under:

“….Based on the recommendation of Collector, Khammam District and necessary following documents/certificates produced by the Freedom Fighters in support of their claims, whose cases have already been recommended by the erstwhile HSSC for grant of Central Freedom Fighters Pension under SSSPS, 1980, 45 cases are hereby recommended by this State Government.”

Basing on the aforesaid recommendation, it is contended by the petitioner that his name was recommended and that he is entitled for the pension. But, the petitioner has not produced any evidence showing that his name was included in 45 cases, nor taken any steps to call for the record from the respondents. There is no iota of evidence before this Court that the name of the petitioner was recommended by respondents Nos.2 and 3. In the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s name was recommended to respondent No.1 by HSSC.

viii) However, in the said circumstances and as HSSC did not recommend the name of the petitioner, respondent No.1 had accepted to consider the case of the petitioner under the provisions of SSSP Scheme, 1980, which was further renamed in 2017 as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana (SSSY). In order to grant a pension under SSSY, a freedom fighter must have the following:

(i) A person who on account of his participation in freedom struggle remained underground for six (06)months or more provided he was:

(a) a proclaimed offender; or

(b) one on whom an award for arrest/head was announced; or

(c) One whose detention order was issued but not served;

(d) Voluntary underground suffering or self-exile for party work under the command of the party leaders is not covered as eligible sufferings for pension under the Scheme.

(ii) The applicant should furnish the documents indicated below, whichever is applicable, in order to prove his claimed sufferings for grant of pension under the SSS Yojana

(a) Primary evidence: Documentary evidence by way of Court’s/Government’s order proclaiming the applicant as an absconder, announcing an award on his head or for his arrest or ordering his detention. According to the SSSP Yojana, 1980, absconsion on issue of warrant of arrest is not an eligible suffering for grant of Samman Pension, unless the same is followed by the order of proclaimed offender/or award for arrest/on head or detention order;

(b) Secondary evidence: In the absence of primary record based evidence, a Non availability of Records Certificate (NARC) from the concerned State Government/Union Territory Administration along with a Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) from a prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering of minimum two years and who happened to be from the same administrative district can be submitted as supporting evidence to the claim.

ix) Coming to the petitioner’s case, the petitioner does not fall in any of the above categories to consider his claim for grant of pension and did not produce any evidence either primary or secondary, except filing orders of arrest. Thus, respondent No.1 did not consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighter pensions.

CONCLUSION:

i) In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has not placed any material to show that either his name was recommended by HSSC or he remained underground for six (06) months or more, so as to grant freedom fighters’ pension. In the absence of the same, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of such pension. Thus, viewed from any angle, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

ii) The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.