Pesaru Dharma Reddy v. Union of India

1. W.P.(C) No.2540 /2007 SOORA UPPALAIAH AND ORS...... Petitioners Through: Mr. D.K. Thakur, Advocate.

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR...... Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with Mr. Soayib Qureshi, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

2. W.P.(C) No.3940/2007 PESARU DHARMA REDDY AND ORS...... Petitioners

VERSUS

3. W.P.(C) No.3035/2007 KUMBABAM VENKAIAH..... Petitioners

VERSUS

4. W.P.(C) No.6854/2007 GUDIMELLA RAMACHANDRAM & ORS...... Petitioners

VERSUS

JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) W.P.(C) No.2540/2007

1. There are 57 writ petitioners. Each of the petitioners claims Samman Pension under the Swantantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’).

2. The procedure under the Scheme is that application which is complete in all respect and supported by all the relevant documents has to be given to the Union of India. A copy of the application is also given to the State Government. The State Government thereafter has a duty to verify the compliance of requirements of the Scheme, as also that the applicants have submitted all the documents. The State Government thereafter sends its recommendations, whether for grant or for refusal of pension, under the Scheme to the Central Government. It is when there is refusal of the State Government, and which communicated to the Union of India, and which is communicated to an applicant, that a writ petition can be filed to challenge the refusal.

3. In the present case, firstly there is mis-joinder of cause of action inasmuch as surely for 57 petitioners facts will be separate and therefore there cannot be joinder of 57 separate cases where there would be different factual issues. Further the respondent No.1/Union of India has filed an affidavit that the respondent No.2/State Government of Andhra Pradesh has recommended for rejection of the cases of all the 57 petitioners because valid documentary evidence has not been filed in support of the claims by the petitioners.

4. When the writ petition was filed there was no challenge which was laid to the orders which have been passed, possibly because either the orders were not passed or not communicated to the petitioners. Since now the position is that orders have been passed declining the grant of Samman Pension to the petitioners, each of the petitioners will have to, separately in their independent petitions, challenge the refusal orders on such grounds as they think appropriate. It appears that petitioners however do not have the refusal orders which have been passed by the Union of India and also the refusal orders of the respondent No.2/State Government.

5. Accordingly, let the respondent No.1 give to the petitioners the orders which have been passed with respect to refusal alongwith the verification reports of the State Government for all the petitioners to the counsel for the petitioners as also the petitioners within two weeks from today. In case, for a few petitioners, out of 57 before this Court, no orders have been issued, the appropriate authority will now issue orders within a period of two weeks from today and communicate the same within a period of two weeks thereafter to the petitioners as also their counsel.