Delhi High Court
Soora Uppalaiah And Ors. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 9 September, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) Nos.2540 /2007, 3940/2007, 3035/2007 & 6854/2007
% 9th September, 2013
1. W.P.(C) No.2540 /2007
SOORA UPPALAIAH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. D.K. Thakur, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with Mr.
Soayib Qureshi, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
2. W.P.(C) No.3940/2007
PESARU DHARMA REDDY AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. D.K. Thakur, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with Mr.
Soayib Qureshi, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
W.P.(C) Nos.2540/2007&conn. matters Page 1 of 5
3. W.P.(C) No.3035/2007
KUMBABAM VENKAIAH ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. D.K. Thakur, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with Mr.
Soayib Qureshi, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
4. W.P.(C) No.6854/2007
GUDIMELLA RAMACHANDRAM & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. D.K. Thakur, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
W.P.(C) Nos.2540/2007&conn. matters Page 2 of 5
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) No.2540/2007
1. There are 57 writ petitioners. Each of the petitioners claims
Samman Pension under the Swantantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme,
1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme').
2. The procedure under the Scheme is that application which is
complete in all respect and supported by all the relevant documents has to be
given to the Union of India. A copy of the application is also given to the
State Government. The State Government thereafter has a duty to verify the
compliance of requirements of the Scheme, as also that the applicants have
submitted all the documents. The State Government thereafter sends its
recommendations, whether for grant or for refusal of pension, under the
Scheme to the Central Government. It is when there is refusal of the State
Government, and which communicated to the Union of India, and which is
communicated to an applicant, that a writ petition can be filed to challenge
the refusal.
3. In the present case, firstly there is mis-joinder of cause of action
inasmuch as surely for 57 petitioners facts will be separate and therefore
there cannot be joinder of 57 separate cases where there would be different
factual issues. Further the respondent No.1/Union of India has filed an
W.P.(C) Nos.2540/2007&conn. matters Page 3 of 5
affidavit that the respondent No.2/State Government of Andhra Pradesh has
recommended for rejection of the cases of all the 57 petitioners because
valid documentary evidence has not been filed in support of the claims by
the petitioners.
4. When the writ petition was filed there was no challenge which
was laid to the orders which have been passed, possibly because either the
orders were not passed or not communicated to the petitioners. Since now
the position is that orders have been passed declining the grant of Samman
Pension to the petitioners, each of the petitioners will have to, separately in
their independent petitions, challenge the refusal orders on such grounds as
they think appropriate. It appears that petitioners however do not have the
refusal orders which have been passed by the Union of India and also the
refusal orders of the respondent No.2/State Government.
5. Accordingly, let the respondent No.1 give to the petitioners the
orders which have been passed with respect to refusal alongwith the
verification reports of the State Government for all the petitioners to the
counsel for the petitioners as also the petitioners within two weeks from
today. In case, for a few petitioners, out of 57 before this Court, no orders
have been issued, the appropriate authority will now issue orders within a
W.P.(C) Nos.2540/2007&conn. matters Page 4 of 5
period of two weeks from today and communicate the same within a period
of two weeks thereafter to the petitioners as also their counsel.
6. When the petitioners through their counsel will get the orders of
refusal, then, at that stage, petitioners (who will be a few hundred in number
taking the connected petitions together) are given liberty to challenge the
refusal orders by filing appropriate independent writ petitions. For the
present, writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. I
clarify that in case petitioners are of the opinion that they are being
unnecessarily harassed, then, surely it will be open to the petitioners to pray
for costs in the independent petitions by which they will challenge the
refusal orders for non grant of Samman Pension. Parties are left to bear their
own costs.
W.P.(C) Nos. 3940/2007, 3035/2007 & 6854/2007
The writ petitioners are different but the issues are same which
stand decided in W.P.(C) No.2540/2007. These writ petitions are also
therefore dismissed, subject to the directions given in W.P.(C)
No.2540/2007. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
