Appellant challenged the denial of Freedom Fighter Pension under Delhi Union Territory Freedom Fighter (DUTFF) pension scheme - CIC: Records reveal that consolidated DUTFF pension has been directed to be released in favour of the Appellant as assured
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.03.2017, challenging the denial of Freedom Fighter Pension under Delhi Union Territory Freedom Fighter (DUTFF) pension scheme 1989 with effect from 09.10.1989, and against the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 22.02.2015, 24.02.2015 and other related information. PIO/Dy. Secretary (GAD) vide letter dated 20.04.2017 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 12.05.2017. FAA/Spl. Secretary (GAD) vide order dated 07.06.2017 held as follows:-
“A direction is being given to PIO(GAD) to arrange a physical inspection of the file directly to the appellant during the working hours in next 10 days and provide the copy of available information”.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Respondent alone is present for hearing, while the appellant has not appeared citing health reasons. The appellant’s case revolves around his claim that the special pension granted by the Delhi Government to the erstwhile Freedom Fighters, viz. DUTFF has been denied to him, despite directions of Prof. Acharyulu, former Commissioner in this Commission, while adjudicating case number CIC/SA/A/2016/000983 vide decision dated 01.07.2016. The Appellant has also referred to some judgements passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, from time to time which have also been taken into account in the previous decision of this Commission, passed on 01.07.2016. The instant case is more or less in the nature of a non-compliance petition by the appellant alleging that the directions passed by the Commission vide order dated 01.07.2016, have not been complied with by the respondent.
The respondent is present for hearing and has submitted a complete background of the case including noting sheet of the appellant’s case, explaining that the he had applied for grant of DUTFF on 29.12.2009 for the first time, from the Delhi Government. Upon due consideration, his case was rejected by the then Chief Secretary, GNCTD. Subsequently, the appellant had filed an RTI application dated 09.12.2015, which eventually reached this Commission in the form of a Second Appeal dated 18.03.2016 and was decided by the Commission, vide the aforementioned order dated 01.07.2016. It is noted that averments in the noting sheet further clarify that pension had not been granted initially to the appellant due to non-verification of documents and rejection of Swantantrata Sainik Samman (SSS) Pension by MHA, GOI, which was granted on the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide judgement dated 24.02.2015 while deciding Writ Petition No. 6950/2014. Upon grant of the SSS Pension by the MHA, since 16.10.2015, the appellant became eligible for the DUTFF Pension, in terms of a gazette notification dated 30.03.1989. Accordingly, the appellant’s case for grant of DUTFF pension w.e.f 29.12.2009 was also approved and the pension released in favour of the appellant vide Pension Payment order dated 02.09.2016. The respondent submitted letter dated 20.10.2016 reporting compliance of the Commission’s directions.
The Commission has perused in detail the facts of the case. The basic premise of the case is that the DUTFF pension was denied to the appellant, despite directions of the Commission vide order dated 01.07.2016. Relevant excerpts of the Commission’s order dated 01.07.2016 while deciding the case number CIC/SA/A/2016/000983, are as follows:
“.....6. The appellant was sanctioned Central Samman Pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 with effect from 9th October,1989 with DA in compliance with Hon’ble Delhi High Court order dated 24.2.2015 in W.P.No6950/2014. Rules do not prohibit freedom fighter with central pension from applying under Delhi UT scheme. He applied for pension from the Govt of Delhi and applied for the same. The PIO/GNCTD stated that initially the Govt of Delhi rejected his application due to some deficiencies. Respondent officer felt that after Delhi High Court ordered and Govt. of India's sanction of the pension, there might be no problem in granting pension. ............................................................................................................
9. The Commission directs the PIO/GNCTD to guide & provide necessary assistance to facilitate in securing the pension from the Govt of Delhi, with some human concern and respect for this freedom fighter. Mr. Amitabh Kundu, Dy Secretary, GAD assured the Commission to take personal care in processing the claim of the appellant within 45 days from today and report compliance to the Commission.
10. The Commission directs the GAD, to explain why it should not be directed to pay suitable compensation to the appellant for harassment meted out to him due to lethargy and redtape in getting prompt reply and action on his application, within 30 days from today...”
Records submitted by the respondent during hearing reveal that consolidated DUTFF pension of Rs. 3500/- w.e.f. 29.12.2009 to 30.06.2010 and Rs. 4500/- w.e.f. 01.07.2010 has been directed to be released in favour of the Appellant vide Pension payment order dated 02.09.2016. Thus it is noted that the assurance given by the respondent during the hearing has been duly acted upon and the PPO dated 02.09.2016 is proof of the action taken by the respondent, which has been duly reported to the Commission vide letter dated 20.10.2016. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the Commission is satisfied that directions as passed by the predecessor Bench of this Commission, vide order dated 01.07.2016, have been duly acted upon by the respondent and the pension under DUTFF scheme has been released. The Commission is of the considered opinion that action, as desired by the appellant, has been duly taken by the respondent on 02.09.2016. The Second Appeal and other submissions of the appellant do not indicate the cause of his grievance. Hence, the instant case is disposed off as such, with no further directions.
Y. K. Sinha
Citation: Shri Radha Krishan v. General Administration Deptt. Second Appeal Nos. CIC/GNCTD/A/2017/165232 CIC/GNADD/A/2017/154405, Delhi Secretariat in Date of Decision : 04.04.2019