Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

P. Pratapa Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.

P. Pratapa Reddy and ors. vs State of A.P. and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Sep 01, 1994
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/436002

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition Nos. 7721 and 7722 of 1982
Subject
Service
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - But, in any event, the petitioners and the like who were being granted pension before 25-2-1981 cannot be deprived of their right merely because the guideline has been changed. dated 25-2-1981, as all the beneficiary schemes and more so, for a laudable cause like this relating to payment of pension to freedom ...

Key legal issue
Service
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P. Pratapa Reddy and ors.

Advocate S. Ramachandra Rao, Adv.

Respondent

State of A.P. and ors.

Advocate G.P. for Revenue

Legal References

Reported In
1994(3)ALT580

Excerpt

- - but, in any event, the petitioners and the like who were being granted pension before 25-2-1981 cannot be deprived of their right merely because the guideline has been changed. dated 25-2-1981, as all the beneficiary schemes and more so, for a laudable cause like this relating to payment of pension to freedom fighters, have to be construed liberally in favour of the beneficiaries......pension. the government of andhra pradesh issued g.o.ms. no. 1080 revenue department, dated 30-6-1978 under which a scheme was framed to pay pensions to freedom fighters who fought for the cause of the nation during freedom struggle movement. a fact finding committee was constituted to identify such freedom fighters entitling for pension and the petitioners were among the beneficiaries identified for payment of such pension. the petitioners were being granted the said pension from the month of april, 1980 with retrospective effect from 30-6-1978, but abruptly, the pension was stopped on the ground of issuances of g.o.ms. no. 291,dated 25-2-1981. the reason for such stoppage was that under the above g.o., freedom fighters pension was available only to the freedom fighters undergoing jail sentence for six months and more and not below six months. the petitioners underwent jail sentence only for 3 months. but the later g.o. dated 25-2-1981 cannot be retrospective in operation. such of the applicants including that of the petitioners who were already identified for entitlement of freedom fighters pension under the then rules existing and who were being paid the said pension cannot be deprived of the same by a subsequent guideline. may be the subsequent guideline can be made applicable for such of those applicants whose application either was pending as on 25-2-1981 or whose applications were filed later to that date. but, in any event, the petitioners and the like who were being granted pension before 25-2-1981 cannot be deprived of their right merely because the guideline has been changed. indisputably, no such distinction was drawn basing on the quantum of jail sentence and that was only introduced by a later g.o. dated 25-2-1981bthe later g.o. dated 25-2-1981 can be only prospective and cannot have the effect of demolishing the vested right of the petitioners who were identified as freedom fighters under the then existing rules and who were being paid pension.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.

1. These two writ petitions relate to payment of freedom fighters pension. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 1080 Revenue Department, dated 30-6-1978 under which a scheme was framed to pay pensions to freedom fighters who fought for the cause of the Nation during freedom struggle movement. A fact finding committee was constituted to identify such freedom fighters entitling for pension and the petitioners were among the beneficiaries identified for payment of such pension. The petitioners were being granted the said pension from the month of April, 1980 with retrospective effect from 30-6-1978, but abruptly, the pension was stopped on the ground of issuances of G.O.Ms. No. 291,dated 25-2-1981. The reason for such stoppage was that under the above G.O., freedom fighters pension was available only to the freedom fighters undergoing jail sentence for six months and more and not below six months. The petitioners underwent jail sentence only for 3 months. But the later G.O. dated 25-2-1981 cannot be retrospective in operation. Such of the applicants including that of the petitioners who were already identified for entitlement of freedom fighters pension under the then rules existing and who were being paid the said pension cannot be deprived of the same by a subsequent guideline. May be the subsequent guideline can be made applicable for such of those applicants whose application either was pending as on 25-2-1981 or whose applications were filed later to that date. But, in any event, the petitioners and the like who were being granted pension before 25-2-1981 cannot be deprived of their right merely because the guideline has been changed. Indisputably, no such distinction was drawn basing on the quantum of jail sentence and that was only introduced by a later G.O. dated 25-2-1981bThe later G.O. dated 25-2-1981 can be only prospective and cannot have the effect of demolishing the vested right of the petitioners who were identified as freedom fighters under the then existing rules and who were being paid pension right from April 1980 and that too, with retrospective effect from 30-6-1978. It is needless to mention that this is the only harmonious construction which can be placed on the later G.O. dated 25-2-1981, as all the beneficiary schemes and more so, for a laudable cause like this relating to payment of pension to freedom fighters, have to be construed liberally in favour of the beneficiaries.

2. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to continue the payment of pension to the petitioners right from the date on which such payment was stopped and with such escalation, as may be made subsequently by the Government. Two months time from to-day is granted for payment of arrears. From the month of October, 1994, the pension payment shall be made to the petitioners regularly within 10th day of each English calendar month. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial