VIJAYAWADA: Making it clear that the sanction of pension for an individual is the policy decision of the State government, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has said it cannot interfere in the matter of conditions imposed on multiple pensions to a beneficiary family.
The bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Rao Raghunandan Rao passed these orders while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Tandav Yogesh, challenging the conditions imposed on extending pensions.
In the PIL, the advocate stated that the government issued GO 174 in December 2019 making changes in the conditions for getting pension under the YSR Pension Scheme. Yogesh maintained that it is against the Constitution that only one beneficiary gets pension even if there are more than one old age person or a widow rather than all of them receiving the benefit.
Hearing the petition, the bench asked the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Principal Secretary, CEO of SERP, Secretary of Rural Development to file detailed counters. During arguments, government pleader V Kiran Kumar informed the court that the government had come up with certain conditions after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects. The bench, which delivered its verdict recently, made some important observations in its orders.
The bench said the State government is spending Rs 19,161 crore for pensions, while the Central share is just Rs 288 crore in it. Stating that it has the details of the amount spent by the State and Central governments, the bench said while the Centre is giving Rs 188.74 crore for old age pensions, the State is spending Rs 10,164 crore.
Similarly, for widow pensions, the Centre’s share is Rs 91.07 crore, while the State is incurring Rs 4,1299.44 crore. In case of pensions for the physically challenged, the Centre is giving Rs 9.05 crore while the State is bearing Rs 2,594.31 crore. In all, the State is spending Rs 19,161.66 crore per annum, while the Centre is giving only Rs 288 crore, it pointed out.
The bench also said it would not agree to the contention of the petitioner that the State government is not following the National Social Security Scheme guidelines going by the amount spent by the State and Central governments.The bench further said the Supreme Court had earlier made it clear that extending pensions purely depends on the economic situation of the State and is a policy decision of the government concerned.
The HC bench said the government chose the family as a unit for extending pensions taking into consideration its economic situation and the court cannot use its powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution in this regard.Stating that it is leaving the matter to the discretion of the State government, the bench dismissed the PIL.