Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gundurao Desai, aged 94 years, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. He claimed to be a freedom fighter and sought a direction to the Assistant Commissioner, Hosapete (respondent No. 3) to consider his original letter dated 27.12.1995 for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension. The petitioner had submitted an application in 1995, but the respondent authorities issued an endorsement dated 20.07.2019 rejecting his claim on the ground that he had not produced two affidavits of co-freedom fighters as required under the government order No. RD 89 LGP 1994 dated 27.12.1995. The petitioner contended that he had produced at least one affidavit and that the rejection was arbitrary. The Court observed that the endorsement was in Kannada and its net effect was rejection of the claim. The Court noted that the petitioner had made an application as early as 1995 and that the requirement of two affidavits should not be strictly applied given the petitioner's advanced age. The Court held that the rejection was unsustainable and directed the respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner's original application dated 27.12.1995 and pass appropriate orders within three months, taking a liberal view. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Freedom Fighters Pension - Rejection of Claim - The petitioner, aged 94 years, claimed freedom fighter pension. The respondent rejected his claim on the ground that he had not produced two affidavits of co-freedom fighters as required under the scheme. The Court held that the rejection was unsustainable as the petitioner had submitted an original application in 1995 and had produced at least one affidavit. The Court directed the respondent to consider the original application dated 27.12.1995 and pass appropriate orders within three months, taking a liberal view considering the petitioner's advanced age. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for Freedom Fighters Pension on the ground that he had not produced two affidavits of co-freedom fighters is sustainable, and whether the respondent authorities should be directed to consider the petitioner's original application dated 27.12.1995.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The endorsement dated 20.07.2019 is set aside. The respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the petitioner's original application dated 27.12.1995 and pass appropriate orders within three months, taking a liberal view considering the petitioner's advanced age.
Law Points
- Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme
- Rejection of pension claim
- Requirement of two affidavits
- Consideration of original application
- Liberal approach for aged applicants
