The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Rajula Sahu
2021 Latest Caselaw 1194 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1194 AP
Judgement Date : 26 February, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Rajula Sahu on 26 February, 2021

Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, Lalitha Kanneganti

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                           &
        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI


                 WRIT APPEAL No.103 OF 2021

              (Taken up through video conferencing)

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its
Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj &
Rural Development Department.,
Government of A.P. Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Guntur District and four others.

                                                           .. Appellants
            Versus

Rajula Sahu, W/o.late Narsinga,
widow, aged about 50 years, coolie,
R/o.Birlangi Village, Itchapuram Mandal,
Srikakulam District and 174 others.

                                                         .. Respondents

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. C.Sumon, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General.

Counsel for the respondents       : --

                       ORAL JUDGMENT

                           Dt:26.02.2021

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ

Heard Mr. C.Sumon, learned Government Pleader

attached to the office of the learned Advocate General,

appearing for the appellants.

The name of Venkateswarlu Kolla, Advocate, is shown in

the cause list on the side of the respondents/writ petitioners,

but none appeared for them when the matter is called.

It was submitted by Mr. C.Sumon that copy of the

appeal memo sought to be served was returned by

Mr. Venkateswarlu Kolla on the ground that he did not have

any instructions to appear. He, however, submitted that

Mr. Venkateswarlu Kolla is appearing in the contempt case on

behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners and, thus, prayed

for a short pass over in order to enable him to have an

interaction with Mr. Venkateswarlu Kolla.

Prayer was allowed and the matter was passed over.

When the matter is again taken up later on, it is submitted by

Mr. C.Sumon that Mr. Venkateswarlu Kolla informed him

that he is not appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners

in this appeal.

The writ appeal is presented against the order, dated

08.09.2020, passed in W.P.No.21104 of 2019.

It is the case of the writ petitioners that pension at the

rate of Rs.2,250/- per month under the scheme called 'Y.S.R.

Pension Kanuka' was paid to them from May, 2019, till

August, 2019, and thereafter, it was stopped by the

respondents and that they are either widows or single women,

who were deserted by their respective husbands.

Perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge goes to

show that it was contended on behalf of the writ petitioners

that without conducting any enquiry and without following

any procedure, payment of pension was stopped though they

are eligible to receive the same under the aforesaid scheme.

Learned Single Judge observed that except making a

statement in the counter-affidavit that the writ petitioners

were not eligible for pension as per the complaints received

and as per the enquiries made by the authorities, no details

were furnished by the respondents (appellants) regarding

such enquiries and as to whether any notice was issued to

the writ petitioners before stopping the pension. It was also

noted that there was no mention in the counter-affidavit

when the decision was taken to stop payment of pension to

the writ petitioners and whether proceedings to that effect

were communicated to them. The learned Single Judge

further observed that the resolution of the Gram Sabha,

which recommends the eligible persons for pension, forms the

basis for sanction of pension and as such, if for any reason,

the respondents (appellants) intended to stop/cancel pension

to the beneficiaries, it has to be placed before the Gram

Sabha and before such course of action is taken, the writ

petitioners have to be put on notice and as no opportunity of

hearing, as noticed hereinabove, was given, the same has

resulted in violation of principles of natural justice.

The learned Single Judge noted that stopping payment

of social security pension to the writ petitioners without

conducting any enquiry or without issuing notice is illegal,

arbitrary, besides being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India.

Accordingly, while allowing the writ petition, the learned

Single Judge issued the following directions:

"1) The respondents are directed to make payment

of pension to the petitioners from the month

when it was stopped to till date within a period

of 15 days.

2) The respondents are directed to continue the

payment of pension every month to the

petitioners till the appropriate orders to be

passed by the competent authority after

conducting appropriate enquiry, in accordance

with law, if so advised, to ascertain the

eligibility of the petitioners in Gram Sabha after

giving opportunity to the petitioners."

Mr. C.Sumon has fairly submitted that before pension

was stopped, notices were not issued to the beneficiaries. It

is, however, submitted by him that after the order was passed

in the writ petition, notices were issued.

We are concerned, in this appeal, with the manner in

which pension was stopped and not what happened after

passing of the order in the writ petition.

It is also not the case projected in the appeal that Gram

Sabha had not conducted selection of beneficiaries.

Going through the order of the learned Single Judge and

upon hearing Mr. C.Sumon, we are of the opinion that no

interference is called for with the order under challenge.