Kailasho Devi v Union of India and another
Himachal Pradesh High Court
13 June 2013
LPA No. 341 of 2012
The Judgment was delivered by : A. M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. We have heard counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 16th December, 2011, in CWP No.828 of 2008-D. By that judgment, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking direction against the respondents to consider the claim of the appellant for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, as per the Scheme framed by the Central Government in that behalf, dated 15th August, 1981.
3. No doubt, the learned Single Judge has negatived the claim of the appellant, but considering the fact, which is indisputable, that the State Government had already recognized the appellant’s husband as freedom fighter for the purpose of State Government Scheme and the appellant is getting relief as per the State’s Scheme in that behalf as also because the State Government has already verified the claim of the incumbent and recommended grant of certificate to the appellant under the Central Scheme, it is for the Central Authority to scrutinize the application of the applicant in accordance with law. The stand of the Central Authority, however, is that no recommendation was received from the State Government, as is stated in the reply-affidavit.
4. On the other hand, the stand taken in the reply-affidavit filed by the State Government in response to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition clearly assert that the case of the appellant was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur to the State Government, after getting the verification, on 16th August, 2005 and reference was made to respondent No.1 alongwith all the relevant documents vide letter, dated 24th August, 2005. In other words, the said letter dated 24th August, 2005 sent by the State Authorities has not been received by respondent No.1.
5. In the circumstances, appropriate course, in our opinion, is to direct the State Authorities to re-submit the said letter, dated 24th August, 2005, alongwith all the relevant documents to respondent No.1 within one month from today and upon receipt of the same, respondent No.1 must consider the case of the appellant, on its own merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned decision.
6. We quash and set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge and instead relegate the appellant before respondent No.1 for consideration of the claim on its own merits in accordance with law after the State Authorities submit the above said communication and all relevant documents, as was required to be done in terms of cl. 10 of the Central Scheme. We once again make it clear that all questions raised by the appellant and, in particular, with regard to the efficacy of the documents relied upon by the appellant, are left open to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. Respondent No.1 shall decide the claim of the appellant within 8 weeks from the receipt of documents and recommendatory letter from the State Authorities and communicate its final decision taken thereon to the appellant within the same time.
7. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
Appeal disposed of
