Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Thandava Yogesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 October, 2023

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          &
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                    W.P.(PIL).No.111 of 2022
Between:

Thandava Yogesh, Advocate,
S/o. Venkateswarlu,
R/o. 1-133, Near Vinayaka Temple,
Amaravathi Road, Peddaparimi (V),
Thullur Mandal, Guntur District - 522236
                                                         ...Petitioner

           Versus

  1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principal Secretary,
     Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, A.P.
     Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati - 522503.
  2. The Chief Executive Officer, Society for Elimination of Rural
     Poverty, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.
  3. Union of India, rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Rural
     Development, Krishi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New
     Delhi - 110001.

                                     ...Respondents/Respondents 1


Party-in-person             : Mr. Tandava Yogesh,

Counsel for respondent No.1 : G.P. for PR & RD

Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. Harish Kumar Rasineni

Counsel for respondent No.3 : Deputy Solicitor General
                                   2
                                                            HCJ & RRR,J
                                                W.P.(PIL).No.111 of 2022


                            JUDGMENT

Dt:13.10.2023

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

Heard Sri Thandava Yogesh, party-in-person, learned

Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for

respondent No.1, Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.2, and the Deputy Solicitor General

appearing for respondent No.3.

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh has been operating a

system of grant of pensions, to various sections of society, under

G.O.Ms.No.174, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.I)

Department, dated 13.12.2019. The said G.O. provides for grant of

pension to 12 categories of persons. However, Rule 4 (1)(i) of the

said G.O, restricts grant of pension to only one person in a family

except where the second person is a disabled person with 80% and

above degree of disability; dialysis patients (CKDU) / Severe Mental

Retardation / PLHIV (ART); and Pensions sanctioned, vide

G.O.Rt.No.551 HM & FW Department, dated 26.10.2-19, and Memo

No.3033401/D1/2019, of HM & FW Department, dated 08.11.2019.

3. The petitioner challenges this restriction in grant of

pension on the ground that the said restriction is violative of

HCJ & RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.111 of 2022

Articles 14, 21, 39(A) and 39(E), and 41 of the Constitution of India

apart from being violative of sections 3(1)(c), 4(2) and Schedule-I

of the Unorganized Workers' Social Security Act, 2008 and violation

of National Social Assistance Programme Guidelines issued by the

Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development and also

violation of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(UDHR).

4. Sri Thandava Yogesh draws the attention of this Court

to Articles 39(A) and (E) read with Article 41 of the Constitution of

India, which read as follows:

"Article 39A Equal Justice and free legal aid:- The State shall secure that the operation of te legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.

39(e):- that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;

5. He would contend that the said provisions of the

Constitution mandate that the Government of the State would have

to ensure minimum sustenance to all citizens and more specifically

HCJ & RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.111 of 2022

the citizens who are unable to fend for themselves on account of old

age, or economic backwardness. Sri Thandava Yogesh contends that

the beneficiaries enumerated in the 12 categories set out in

G.O.Ms.No.174 would squarely fall within these parameters and

would have to be given financial support and assistance without any

restriction including the restriction that only one member in the

family would be given financial assistance.

6. Sri Thandava Yogesh has taken this Court through the

provisions of the Unorganized Workers Social Security Act, 2008

and the guidelines under the National Social Assistance Program

issued by the Government of India. He would submit that these

provisions are binding on the State Government and the State

Government, while taking assistance from the Central Government

for distribution of pensions, has violated the said guidelines by

putting forth the restriction of grant of pension to only one member

of the family.

7. Sri Thandava Yogesh, draws the attention of this Court

to Guideline No.2.2, which enumerates the sub-schemes being

operated under the National Social Assistance Programme, which

includes an old age pension scheme, and Guideline No.2.3, which

states the eligibility for grant of old age pension, are the

HCJ & RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.111 of 2022

requirement of crossing the age of 60 years wherein the pension

would be Rs.200/- per month, and to cross the age of 80 years to be

entitled for a pension of Rs.500/- per month. He would point out that

there is no restriction that the pension can be given only to one

family member and a reading of the eligibility criteria makes it clear

that any person above the age of 60 years would be eligible for such

pension.

8. Sri Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, learned Government

Pleader contends that the provisions of Articles 39 and 41 which

are part of the Directive Principles of State Policy are not

enforceable by any Court. He would also submit that the provisions

of the Unorganized Workers Social Security Act, 2008 would be

applicable to cases where persons, who were part of the labour

force, require assistance on account of various factors. He would

submit that in the present case, the criteria for grant of pension is

not whether the beneficiaries are part of the said force or not and

the criteria for grant of pension would be on the basis of whether

they meet the requirements set out in G.O.Ms.No.174.

9. On the question of the usage of Central funds in the

distribution of pensions under G.O.Ms.No174, the attention of this

court is drawn to paragraph No.32, wherein the details of the

HCJ & RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.111 of 2022

amounts spent for grant of pensions in which states are given, and

to paragraphs 22, 25 and 26 to show that the amounts spent by the

State Government, are wholly disproportionate to the amounts

given by the Central Government, and as such, the contention that

the State Government is unreasonable in restricting the grant of

pension is incorrect.

10. Sri Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi, would also submit that the

State Government, after considering the best manner of distribution

of pensions, had taken a policy decision that the best manner of

ensuring financial assistance is to take the family as a unit. He

would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Balco Employees Union'(Regd.) vs. Union of India1 to contend that

the executive has to be given leeway in economic and policy

decisions, and such discretion cannot be subjected to judicial

review, unless the said policy is so extreme or unreasonable that no

reasonable person would accept such a policy.

Consideration of the Court:

11. The petitioner had contended that the State Government

while incorporating the central assistance into the State scheme

(2002) 2 SCC 333

HCJ & RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.111 of 2022

cannot bring any fresh restrictions which are not there in the

central scheme.

12. The statistics set out by the respondent makes

interesting reading the Central component of old age pensions is

Rs.188.74 crores the State component is Rs.10,164.08 crores. The

central component of widow pension is Rs.91.07 crores while the

State component is Rs.4,129.44 crores. The central component of

disabled pensions is Rs.9.05 crores while the State component is

Rs.2594.31 crores. The statistics, in paragraph 32, would show that

Rs.19161.66 crores is being spent, annually, by the State of Andhra

Pradesh towards grant of pensions to various sections of society.

13. In view of these figures, the contention of the petitioner

that the State Government is not following the guidelines set out in

the National Social Assistance Program cannot be accepted.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar vs.

Union of India2 had considered the issue of assistance to elderly and

old persons, including grant of pension for elderly and creation of

shelter spaces apart from geriatric care and medical fees for elderly

people. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after a review of the extant law,

in this regard, issued certain directions, which are extracted below:

(2019) 2 SCC 636

HCJ & RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.111 of 2022

51. Taking note of the submissions made by the parties before us and while complimenting them for a spirited support of the rights of the elderly, we issue the following directions for the time being:

51.1. The Union of India will obtain necessary information from all the State Governments and the Union Territories about the number of old age homes in each district of the country and file a status report in this regard. 51.2. The Union of India will also obtain from all the State Governments the medical facilities and geriatric care facilities that are available to senior citizens in each district and file a status report in this regard. 51.3. On the basis of the information gathered by the Union of India as detailed in the status reports, a plan of action should be prepared for giving publicity to the provisions of the MWP Act and making senior citizens aware of the provisions of the said Act and the constitutional and statutory rights of senior citizens. 51.4. Section 30 of the MWP Act enables the Government of India to issue appropriate directions to the State Governments to carry out and execute the provisions of the MWP Act. The Central Government must exercise its power in this regard and issue appropriate directions to the State Governments for the effective implementation of the provisions of the MWP Act. Alongside this, the Central Government must, in terms of Section 31 of the MWP Act, conduct a review for the purposes of monitoring the progress in implementation of the MWP Act by the State Governments.

51.5. Some of the schemes referred to hereinabove are comparatively dated. It is high time that the Government of India has a relook at these schemes and perhaps overhaul them with a view to bring about convergence and avoid multiplicity. In particular, the Government of

HCJ & RRR,J W.P.(PIL).No.111 of 2022

India and the State Governments must revisit the grant of pension to the elderly so that it is more realistic. Of course, this would depend upon the availability of finances and the economic capacity of the Government of India and the State Governments.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while being sympathetical

to the plight of the elderly, had qualified the direction to the State

Government, for a revisit of the grant of pension to the elderly, by

holding that such grant of pension would be depending upon the

availability of finances and economic capacity of the Government of

India and the State Governments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while

reiterating the need to take care of the old and infirm was also alive

to the fact that such policies and decisions would be depending upon

the availability of finance and the policies of the Government of the

day. It would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the

Government decisions of the Government, as the same would have

to be left open to the Government of the day.