THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.No. 1087 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant-
Union of India and Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageshwar Rao, learned
counsel for respondent No.2. None has appeared for the first
respondent.
2. This Writ appeal is directed against the order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.No.26115 of 2005 filed by the first respondent as the writ petitioner.
3. First respondent filed the related writ petition for quashing of order dated 23.09.2005 of the appellant whereby claim of the first respondent for family pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (briefly 'the Scheme' hereinafter) was rejected.
::2::
4. Learned Single Judge by the order under appeal, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the rejection order dated 23.09.2005 and directed the appellant to grant pension to the first respondent from the date of making of her application.
5. We may mention that husband of the first respondent i.e., R.Indrasena Reddy had earlier filed an application before the appellant seeking pension under the aforesaid scheme. On such pension not being granted, he had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.25337 of 1999. Though the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, in appeal being W.A.No.73 of 2005, a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the prayer of the husband of the first respondent vide the judgment and order dated 18.02.2005. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.02.2005, appellant i.e., Union of India initially preferred S.L.P.(C)No. 22520 of 2005 and on leave being granted, the same was registered as Civil Appeal No.1915 of 2007. By the judgment and order dated 02.04.2007, Supreme Court held that the husband of the first respondenti.e., R.Indrasena Reddy was not able to ::3::
establish that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria under the Scheme. Accordingly, judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.02.2005 passed in W.A.No.73 of 2005 was set aside.
6. It appears that the aforesaid fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. As a result, learned Single Judge allowed the prayer of the first respondent (wife of R.Indrasena Reddy) for grant of family pension under the Scheme.
7. On 04.09.2014, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while admitting the present appeal declined to suspend the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.03.2014. Against the aforesaid order, appellant i.e., Union of India preferred SLP(C) No. 6624 of 2015. By the order dated 23.02.2015, Supreme Court clarified that its earlier decision in Civil Appeal No.1915 of 2007, which has since been reported in Union of India Vs. R.Indrasena Reddy1 is a relevant fact which is required to be considered.
8. Since the very claim of the husband of respondent No.1 as freedom fighter has been negatived by the Supreme Court, question 1 (2007) 14 SCC 305 ::4::
of respondent No.1 being the wife availing family pension under the Scheme would not arise.
9. Consequently and following the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. R.Indrasena Reddy (supra), we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.P.No.26115 of 2005.
10. Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 12.10.2022 LUR/PRAT