Telangana High Court
The Union Of India vs Smt. Amarlapudi Anantamma on 27 October, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.No. 693 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. K.Arvind Kumar, learned Central Government
Counsel representing the appellant-Union of India and
Ms. Sujatha Kurapati, learned counsel for respondent No.1-writ
petitioner.
2. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order
dated 23.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing
W.P.No.23228 of 2020 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ
petitioner.
3. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition
seeking a declaration that action of the appellant in not paying
dependant family pension to her after the death of her husband-
late A.Purushotham, who was granted freedom fighter pension,
was arbitrary and illegal. She sought for a direction to the
appellant to pay her dependant family pension.
::2::
4. Late husband of respondent Noi.1 was granted freedom
fighter pension during his lifetime. After his death on 06.09.2018,
respondent No.1 made an application for grant of family pension
to her. Since the same was not granted, the related writ petition
came to be filed by her.
5. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No.1
was granted family pension but with effect from 21.05.2021 on
which date respondent No.1 had submitted an application along
with all the documents that were required for processing of the
family pension in her favour.
6. Appellant filed counter-affidavit in the related writ petition
stating that respondent No.1 had filed all the related documents
on 21.05.2021. Therefore, she would be eligible for family
pension from such date i.e., 21.05.2021. Accordingly, sanction
letter dated 28.05.2021 was issued in terms of Swatantra Sainik
Samman Yojana (briefly 'the scheme' hereinafter).
::3::
7. Appellant has referred to and relied upon clause 5.2 of the
revised guidelines of the scheme as per which the claimant was
required to apply for transfer of pension within six months of
the death of the pensioner. Any application received after six
months would not be considered by the disbursing bank, but
would be referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India. It is the Ministry of Home Affairs, which will take a
final decision as to whether the dependent pension would be
paid or not and whether any arrear is also required to be paid or
not.
8. From a perusal of the materials on record, learned Single
Judge noted that the pensioner (freedom fighter) died
on 06.09.2018; death certificate was obtained thereafter
on 16.10.2018; and family member certificate in respect of
respondent No.1 was obtained on 04.01.2019.
9. Learned Single Judge noted that respondent No.1 was
pursing the matter before various authorities for issuance of
relevant documents to be submitted along with the application.
::4::
Delay in submission of relevant documents could not be
ascribed to respondent No.1 as she had no control over
processing, finalization and issuance of such documents.
Reverting back to clause 5.2 of the revised guidelines, learned
Single Judge opined that respondent No.1 would be eligible for
family pension atleast from the date of her application since the
delay in submission of relevant documents was not on account
of respondent No.1. The writ petition was accordingly disposed
of by directing the appellant to pay family pension to respondent
No.1 from the date on which she made the application for
transfer of pension.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the
application of respondent No.1 was filed beyond six months of
the death of her husband, the same is required to be processed
by the Ministry of Home Affairs which is the final authority to
determine as to whether the dependant pension was to be paid
or not.
::5::
11. In the hearing today, we put a query to learned counsel for
the appellant as to whether there was any dispute as to the status
of respondent No.1 being the widow of a freedom fighter
pensioner. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that
on this aspect there is no dispute.
12. If that be the position, we are of the view that objection
raised by the appellant is more of form than of substance. The
husband of respondent No.1 was admittedly granted freedom
fighter pension. The scheme provides for transfer of such
pension to the widow following the death of the pensioner.
Learned Single Judge noted that the delay in submission of
application accompanied by the relevant documents was not on
account of respondent No.1. We agree with the view expressed
by the learned Single Judge.
13. We are further of the view that appellant- Union of India
ought not to have filed the present appeal, that too, on a point of
technicality. Matter relates to grant of family pension to the
::6::
widow of a freedom fighter, who was granted pension in terms
of the scheme. Therefore, we decline to entertain the appeal.
14. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
dismissed.
__________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
_______________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 27.10.2022
LUR
