Judgment:
ORDER
1. The petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ to quash letler No. 129/690/86 FFSZ dated 26-6-1989 and direct the respondent to sanction Swatantrata Sainik Saman Pension to the petitioner with effect from 30-5-1985, the date of applicaton with arrears together with cost.
2. The petitioner filed an application on 30-5-1985 for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Saman Pension. That was rejected by the respondent by letter dated 4-8-1986 in No. 129/690/86 FF S2. The petitioner made a further representation through his Advocate Mr. A. Rangarajan on 10-4-1989. The matter was again considered by the respondent and reply was sent under letter No. 129/690/86 FF S2 dated 26-6-1989, reiterating the stand taken earlier and rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is the latter communication which is sought to be quashed in the writ petition. There is no prayer in the writ petition to quash the earlier communication by which the petitioner's application was rejected on 4-8-1986.
3. The ground on which the application was rejected was that it was time barred. Under the scheme, the last date for submitting applications for pension was 31-3-1982. That itself was only after several extentions of the original date fixed earlier. The petitioner's contention is that he had set an application earlier on 5-2-1982. In his application dated 30-5-1985, he made a reference to the said application dated 5-2-1982. He also made a reference to the Government of India reply No. 129/769/9! dated 18-5-1984. The respondent found that the reference to the Government of India reply does not relate to the petitioner and it relates to another freedom fighter. They were able to trace the file and found out that the reference given by the petitioner was wrong. The respondent found that there was no application of the petitioner on 5-2-1982 with them. Only after considering the entire matter, the respondent sent a reply that the petitioner's application was time barred and rejected the same.
4. The petitioner has not produced any copy of the so called application made on 5-2-1982. In the letter written by the lawyer of the petitioner on 10-4-1989, there was no reference to the earlier application dated 5-2-1982. There is no whisper in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition about theapplication dated 5-2-82. Thus, the petitioner has not in any way established that he has sent an application on 5-2-1982 and that it was in time. 1 called for the production of the files by the respondent and I have gone through the entire file and I do not find any justification in accepting the petitioner's contention that there was an application earlier dated 5-2-82.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as a reference has been made to the application dated 5-2-1982, in the application dated 30-5-1985 the respondent ought to have considered the same. When there was no application at all dated 5-2-1982, there is no point in contending that the respondent ought to have considered the said application, just because there is a reference made to it in the later application. Once, the respondent found that the reference made to the Government's reply was a wrong reference, there is nothing wrong in the respondent presuming that there was no application dated 5-2-1982, particularly when it had not received such an application.
6. It is next argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government has relaxed the rule relating to limitation and extended the date for filing application. That does not in any way help the petitioner. The respondent is not bound by the rules of the State Government or the time prescribed by the State Government for filing applications.
7. In the circumstances, there is absolutely no merit whatever in the writ petition and it is hereby dismissed. No costs.
8. Petition dismissed.