C. VENKAT REDDY AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 08-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 8 S.C.R. 493 
~ 
C. VENKAT REDDY AND ORS. 
.A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 403 of 2002) 
MAY 8, 2009 
B 
[OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1983 -
Petitions under Art.32 - Writ Petitioners aggrieved by denial 
of freedom fighters pension under the Scheme - Claim that c 
the petitioners suffered imprisonment as a part of the freedom 
fight and therefore are entitled to the pension - Statement on_ 
behalf Of Union of India and Government of Andhra Pradesh 
that 22 claimants have been found to be prima facie genuine 
• 
and are being paid pension - Object of the Scheme referred 
D 
to - Held: Genuine freedom fighters deserve to be treated with 
reverence, respect and honour- But at the same time people 
who had no role to play in the freedom struggle should not 
be permitted to benefit from the liberal approach required to 
be adopted in the case of freedom fighters, most of whom in 
E 
. the normal course are septuagenarians and octogenarians -
• 
Payment of pension directed to be continued in the 22 cases 
; 
which have ,been found to be prima facie genuine -
Constitution of India , 1950 - Article 32. 
~ 
Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 
F 
(1993) SC 2127;Gurdial singh v. Union of India (2001) AIR 
SCW 3843 and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of 
Maharashtra (2005) 7 SCC 605, relied on. 
Case Law Reference : 
G 
... 
(1993) SC 2127 
relied on 
Para 3 
(2001) AIR sew 3843 relied on 
Para 4 
(2005) 1 sec 605 
relied on 
Para 6 
493 
H 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 403 of 
B 
c 
D 
2002. 
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India. 
WITH 
W.P. (c) No. 46 of 2006 and 293 of 2006. 
Lata Krishnamurthy, Ashok Kumar Singh, Naresh Kumar 
Gaur, Surinder Dutt Sharma, Baushri Swaraj, Joyeeta Banerjee 
and Anil Kumar Tandale for the Petitioners. 
T.S. Doabia, Rekha Pandey, Sushma Suri, Manoj Swarup, 
T.V. George, P. Venkat Reddy and T. Anil Kumar for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Writ Petition (C) NO. 403 OF 
2002 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 
(in short the 'Constitution') has been filed by 25 petitioners 
claiming to be freedom fighters. They make a grievance that 
they had applied for freedom fighters' pension under "thel 
E Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1983 (in short 
the 'Scheme') but there has been denial of the pension without 
any reason. It is stated that several special screening 
committees constituted by the State have favourably 
recommended their cases but nothing concrete has been done 
F and the State Government also has shown little interest in the 
matter. Similarly in Writ Petition No. 46 of 2006, 32 persons 
have made similar grievance. In each of these cases, the claim 
is that the petitioner suffered imprisonment as a part of the 
freedom fight and therefore is entitled to the pension. 
G 
2. Learned counsel for the Union of India and the 
Government of Andhra Pradesh have filed details and have 
stated that so far as the Writ Petition No. 403 of 2002 is 
concerned, after a preliminary verification it was noted that 22 
cases were found to be genuine cases and have been 
H recommended. In case of one Sh. Narayana Reddy, it was 
.. • 
C.VENKAT REDDY AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 
495 
~ 
AND ORS. (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
found that he was under age as on March, 1947 and he was 
A 
not entitled to any benefit. It was 'also noted that two others 
namely Sh. K.J. Shiva Nagaiah and Smt. Gangamma are dead 
and therefore the question of making any recommendation 
does not arise. It is stated that on the basis of the orders passed 
by this Court, 22 persons found to be prima facie genuine are 
B 
being paid pension with effect from 1.4.2002. This position is 
accepted by learned counsel tor. the petitioners. 
3. The object of the scheme was highlighted by this Court 
in Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1993 c 
SC 2127) 
"The. object was to honour and where it was 
necessary also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had 
given their all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact, 
many of those who do not have sufficient income to 
D 
maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it since they 
cons.ider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with 
which they plunged in the freedom struggle. The spirit of 
the scheme being b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.