AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for grant of pension
under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Scheme, 1980.
Going by the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, it appears that the application submitted by the petitioner is incomplete and
hence the application was not considered. It is undertaken that if the application is resubmitted giving the necessary particulars as are required, the
same shall be considered. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit reads thus:-
“..... The petitioner has to submit the application in the prescribed format filling the entries in Annexure 4 and 5 as per the direction of the
Government. The format of the application was prescribed by the Central Government. It is the Central Government who has prescribed as to what
all details have to be collected from the applicants in the Application Form. The information in respect of the applicant has to be furnished by the
applicant himself. True copy of the Annexure 4 (Co-Prisoner Certificate) and Annexure 5 (Personal Order Certificate) forms submitted by the
petitioner which is incomplete is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(a) and R4(b). Then only it will be possible for the Government to
scrutinize the said details and take further steps towards sanctioning the pension. Whenever the petitioner re-submit the application complying the
direction of Government, further steps will be taken by the Government after scrutinizing the details furnished by him in the application as expeditiously
as possible.â€
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event of the petitioner re-submitting his application for pension under
the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Scheme, 1980 with all the necessary details as is required thereunder, the same shall be considered and orders passed
without delay. I am sure that the authorities will take note of the fact that the petitioner is aged 85 years and expeditious orders will be passed.