Deputy Secy, Ministry Of Home ... vs K. Sunanda Bai, Hyd Ano
2022 Latest Caselaw 5056 Tel

          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

(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