AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order of the second respondent dated 20.03.98, under which the second
respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of Freedom Fighter''s Pension as per the Pension Scheme on the basis that the
Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is general in nature and it is not a certificate issued by a co-prisoner. According to the second
respondent, the petitioner has not obtained certificate from approved co-prisoner and in view of the same, the impugned order came to be passed.
On the face of it, it is the most unfortunate case, wherein, the second respondent instead of taking a pragmatic approach has only taken a
technical stand for the purpose of denying the legitimate right of a person who has fought for the country in the freedom struggle for which there are
abundant records, but taking impossible grounds.
The case of the petitioner is that he is aged 82 years and he has participated in the individual Satyagraha as permitted by Mahatma Gandhiji on
31.05.1941. He was arrested and lodged in Thiruvaadaanai Sub Jail from 31.05.1941 to 06.08.1941. In fact the Tamil Nadu Congress
Committee has nominated him to participate in the said Satyagraha. He has also participated in the 1942 Quit-India Movement and was arrested
and lodged in Madurai Central Jail from 27.08.1942 to March 1943 for a period of seven months. He was unable to produce the jail records as
they have been destroyed by lapse of time.
As correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the Ramnad District Gazette published on 09.11.1949, by the
Government of Madras, while notifying the list of persons declared as eligible for grant of lands under the Political Sufferers List, the name of the
petitioner finds place in Serial No.11, the said notification is extracted below:
Registered No. M890
Government of Madras
Ramnad District Gazette
Extraordinary
Published by authority
November 9, 1949
Notification.
List of persons declared eligible for grant of lands under the scheme sanctioned in G.O.Ms. 3102 Rev. dated 23rd December, 1947 at the meeting
of the District Non-official Advisory Committee held on 28th October, 1949.
Political Sufferrs'' List
Tiruvadanai Taluk:
11 N. Palaniappan, s/o Nagalingam, Gandhi Vilas,
Veerapandiapuram, Devakottai.
Madurai,
29th October, 1949,
Date: Sd. A. Uthandarama Pillai,
Station: Collector./true copy
Further, late Mr. P. Kakkan, President, Tamilnad Congress Committee and former Minister of this State, who has undergone imprisonment in
the freedom struggle has issued a certificate stating that the petitioner is a political sufferer and he was remanded to jail for eight months. In fact he
has stated that the petitioner was with him in Madurai Central Jail during 1942 Freedom Movement. The said certificate is extracted below:
Tamilnad Congress Committee
Grams: CONGRESS Sathiamurthi Bhavan
Phone: 82535 54, General Patters Road,
Ref: No. R.D. 3. Madras-2.
21st Oct., 1970.
Shri. N. Palaniappan, S/o Ramalingam, Devakottai Post, Ramanathapuram District is a Political Sufferer and he was in remand for eight months.
He was along with me in the Madurai Central Jail, during 1942 Freedom Movement.
Sd. P. Kakkan, President
Ex. Minister.
Tamilnad Congress Committee,
Sathyamurthi Bhavan,
54, General Patters Road,
Madras-2./true copy/Seal of District Treasur Office.
Sd. Xxxxx
23.10.80.
Treasury Officer,
Ramanathapuram at Madurai
Id... 23.10.70. Id., 23.10.70
/true copy/
Sri. S. Ramakrishna Thevar, Ex. M.L.A. & M.L.C., Tiruvadanai Constituency and President of Tiruvadanai Taluk Congress Committee and a
freedom fighter has also issued a certificate dated 21.10.80, stating that the petitioner who belonged to Devakottai, Ramanathapuram District is a
freedom fighter and he was in remand along with him for eight months from the last week of August 1942 upto 27th March 1943, at Madurai
Central Jail during 1942 National Congress ""Quit-India"" Freedom Movement.
It is seen that the Secretary to Government by a letter dated 22.11.82, has directed the petitioner to produce the original copy of the co-
prisoner certificate issued by Thiru. S. Ramakrishnan Thevar, Ex. M.L.A. & M.L.C. Based on that, the petitioner has submitted the original
certificate to the Under Secretary to Government on 22.12.82.
It is also seen that the Joint Secretary to Government has in fact recommended to the Deputy Secretary to Government of India, by referring to
the documents submitted by the petitioner including the certificate of Mr. P. Kakkan, former Minister of Tamil Nadu and Mr.S.Ramakrishnan
Thevar, Ex. M.L.A. & M.L.C., for sanction of ""Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension"". When that was rejected by the Government of India, by its
communication dated 30.07.1984, the petitioner has made a fresh representation on 28.12.95. The State Government through its Secretary vide.
letter dated 26.05.97, has directed the petitioner to produce evidence to show that for a minimum period of 21 days he was imprisoned during the
freedom struggle or produce certificate from a co-prisoner in Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District from either Mr. P. Subramanian of
Sivaganga or Mr. R.M. Karuppan Chettiar of Karaikudi.
The District Collector, Sivaganga after conducting enquiry, by his communication dated 05.02.98, addressed to the Secretary to Government
has referred to the above said documents and after satisfying that he was a genuine freedom fighter has recommended for payment of pension by
the State Government by enclosing various documents viz.,
(i) Xerox copy of co-prisoner certificate for having being detained in Madurai Central Jail from August, 1942 to 27.03.1943,
(ii) Certificate from Ramnad District Gazette showing that the petitioner name is in Sl. No. 11 in the Political Sufferers List,
(iii) Residence Certificate,
(iv) Income Certificate,
(v) Identification Certificate along with Photo and Specimen Signature attested by Special Tahsildar, and
(vi) Certificate issued by Mr. R.M. Karuppan Chettiar
However, the impugned order came to be passed by the second respondent only on the ground that the certificate produced by the petitioner
relates to a different period and on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the certificate from the person approved by Government for this
purpose.
The respondents have filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that as per the Tamil Nadu Freedom Fighters Pension Rules,
co-prisoners certificate are to be produced from any two of the fifteen freedom fighters who were specified in the Government Order and they
must certify about the morality and integrity of the person and documentary evidence like arrest warrant are to be produced. It is the case of the
respondents that by G.O.Ms. No. 30, Public (Political Pension. II) Department, dated 07.02.1996, the Government has introduced a modified
procedure regarding acceptance of co-prisoner''s certificate by forming District Level Screening Committee consisting of the Collector of the
District as its Chairman and on the recommendation of the District Level Screening Committee as per the guidelines, the Government will consider
for payment of pension. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that when the petitioner has subsequently applied to the District Collector of
Sivaganga on 18.06.99, he produced certificates from Thiru. R.M. Karuppan Chettiar, Thiru. S. Ramakrishnan Thevar, Ex. M.L.A. & M.L.C.,
along with a copy of notification issued in Ramnad District Gazette. Thereafter, the District Level Screening Committee was convened on
12.01.1998 and the District Collector has recommended the claim of the petitioner for sanction of State Freedom Fighters Pension. However, the
counter affidavit proceeded to show as if the certificate issued by Thiru. R.M. Karuppan Chettiar is general in nature and therefore the request of
the petitioner was rejected. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that Thiru. R.M. Karuppan Chettiar has issued two certificates to the petitioner
and in each certificate the jail term is different. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in one certificate it is found that there are full of over
writings. Also in the counter affidavit it is stated that the certificate issued by Thiru S. Ramakrishnan Thevar, Thiru. K.R.S. Muthu and Thiru. P.
Kakkan are not approved.
Heard Mr. T.M. Hariharan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents and perused the entire records.
On the face of it, as I have stated earlier, it is a classic instance where the Executive instead of taking a pragmatic approach considering the
valuable service rendered by Freedom Fighters during the ""Quit-India"" movement and other freedom struggle along with Mahatma Gandhiji, had
simply thrown out the claim of the petitioner on the basis that certificate issued even by an authority who is authorised by the Government is not
believable. It is astonishing to note that certificate issued by a former Minister of this State whose reputation and integrity is beyond doubt by
anybody in this country like that of Mr. P. Kakkan, has been rejected by the Executive for no reason whatsoever but merely because such
certificate is not authorised. It is also relevant to point out that in this case there is another certificate issued by a co-prisoner Thiru. S.
Ramakrishanan Thevar, who subsequently became a Member in the Legislative Assembly as well as Legislative Council of the State. When it is the
specific case of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the District Level Screening Committee has been constituted with the District Collector
as its Chairman and the District Collector as Chairman, after enquiry, on personal verification has come to the conclusion and recommended
sanction of pension, it is not known as to how the second respondent has come to such a conclusion with flimsy reason which is not only shocking
to conscience of any person who is interested in the nation and if this is the way a freedom fighter is to be treated, certainly the same cannot be in
consonance with the cultural heritage of this great Nation. The notion of the respondents appear to be as if the payment of such amount made
under this scheme are only gracious or compassionate in nature. On the other hand, it is but honouring the persons who have fought for the country
without expecting anything, at that time, but, without whom, the present hierarchy of setup would not have been possible.
The contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that the present writ petition was already dismissed for
default and after considerable time, the petitioner filed a restoration petition to restore the present writ petition and therefore the petitioner has no
intention to pursue the case is unsustainable. Admittedly, at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was aged 82 years and as on date he
should be nearly 90 years old. In such circumstances, the failure to pursue the matter cannot be held against him considering his advanced age.
While dealing with such an application for pension, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in R. Narayanan Vs. Union of India and another, considering a
similar objection as it is raised in the present case, has held in para 11 as follows:
...There is neither justice nor grace in the respondent''s putting forth such objections. No one can really expect official records to have been
preserved for a period of 40 years to prove the treatment given to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him during the freedom struggle.
Hence the objection relating to non-production of official records of the relevant period by the appellant to prove the sustainment of injury by him
deserves outright rejection as well as outright condemnation. As regards the criticism that the appellant''s claim under Clause (e) appears to be an
afterthought, this too merits instantaneous rejection. As we have already pointed out, the government doctors who have examined the appellant
have found his claim of permanent incapacitation of the left eye to be true and the State Government authorities have, after due enquiry, accepted
the bona fides of the appellant''s claim and recommended his case for grant of pension under the S.S.S. Scheme by the respondents.
Consequently, merely because the appellant, perhaps out of ignorance of the several heads under which the claim of pension could be made, had
applied initially for grant of pension under Clause (a), it can never be said that the present claim of the appellant is an afterthought.
In A. Gopal Mudaliyar v. Government of India and Anr. 2004 MHC 722 Hon''ble Mr. Justice P.K. Misra, while dealing with similar situation
of rejection of pension to a freedom fighter by the Central Government under the Swadantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme has referred to the
observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari and others Vs. Union of India and others, wherein the Hon''ble
Supreme Court has held that giving compensation to the freedom fighters is not for the purpose of rewarding but for the purpose of honouring the
person. The relevant para 4 is extracted below:
The manner in which the Central Government appears to have dealt with the application can be best described as cavalier, callous and
capricious. Keeping in view the practical difficulty in obtaining first hand records relating to imprisonment of a particular person in connection with
freedom struggle, the Supreme Court of India and this Court in several decisions have indicated that the matters require to be examined in a liberal
manner. In Mukund Lal Bhandari and others Vs. Union of India and others, , it was observed as follows:
The object in making the said relaxation was not to reward or compensate the sacrifices made in the freedom struggle. The object was to honour
and where it was necessary, also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact, many of
those who do not have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it, since they consider it as an affront to the sense of
patriotism with which they plunged in the Freedom Struggle. The spirit of the Scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge
the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind of a programme of compensation. Yet that may be the
result if the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever the date the application is made. The Scheme should retain its high objective
with which it was motivated. It should not further be forgotten that now its benefit is made available irrespective of the income limit. Secondly, and
this is equally important to note, since we are by this decision making the benefit of the scheme available irrespective of the date on which the
application is made, it would not be advisable to extend the benefit retrospectively. Lastly, the pension under the present Scheme is not the only
benefit made available to the freedom fighters or their dependents. The preference in employment, allotment of accommodation and in admission to
schools and colleges to their kith and kin etc., are also the other benefits which have been made available to them for quite sometime now.
The learned Judge has also referred to a similar Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India AIR 2001 SCW
3843, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has made it very clear that the object of grant of such pension to the living freedom fighters must be
considered in the context that millions of masses of this Country had participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any
scheme at the relevant time and in such circumstance the cumbersome procedure imposed for the purpose of such benefit can only be tiresome and
whittle down the very object of such scheme. Ultimately, the learned Judge has allowed the petition by condemning the conduct of the respondents
in rejecting the claim of pension mechanically on technical reason and directed payment of the amount from the date of application with interest.
The relevant para 8 is as follows:
Keeping in view the various uncontroverted materials on record, I have no doubt in mind that in the present case, the first respondent has
mechanically rejected the application by taking the hyper technical view of the matter and such order cannot be sustained. The petitioner is now
aged about 81 years. It would not be appropriate at this stage to direct the first respondent to consider the matter again, in view of the advanced
age of the petitioner. Following the course adopted by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court in the decisions cited, I feel it proper to give a
direction to the first respondent to grant freedom fighters pension. Since the District Level Committee under the Chairmanship of Collector
recommended the case of the petitioner on 23.12.1997, it is directed that such pension should be paid with effect from 01.01.1998. Following the
decision of this Court in 2002 (3) CTC 107 (cited supra), I further direct that such amount payable from January, 1998 till December 2003 should
be paid with interest at the rate of 10%. This direction should be carried out within a period of three months from the date of communication of the
order.
The Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon''ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam (as he then was) and Hon''ble Mr. Justice N. Paul
Vasanthakumar in The State Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Under Secretary, Public (Political Pension II) Department v. K.S.
Annapparaja (died) by LRs. and Anr. 2007 MHC 1012 while dismissing the appeal filed by the Government, directed payment of Pension from
the original date of application has held as follows:
3......It is clear from the above, taking note of the lapse of time and peculiar circumstances of the case, the Honourable Supreme Court granted
pension with effect from March, 1996 when the petitioner therein filed W.P. No. 12350/1996, considering the special circumstances mentioned
therein, we are of the view that the same cannot be applied to all cases as argued by the learned Government Advocate. In fact, the said issue has
been considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment reported in 1991 W.L.R. 49 (Gabriel, D v. The Government of India)
wherein the learned Judge directed the authority to grant pension from the date of the application of the petitioner. It is also brought to our notice
that the same has been approved by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 1994 WL.R.137 Thangavelu R. v. Government of
India and Anr. It is further brought to our notice that the Honourable Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari and others Vs. Union of India and
others, directed the authorities to sanction Freedom Fighters'' Pension to the petitioner from the date on which the original application was received
whether the application is filed with or without the requisite evidence.
In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal filed by the Government. Consequently, the same is dismissed. In
view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, the appellant is directed to settle the arrears payable to the impleaded 2nd respondent within a period of 8
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
In fact in Gurdial Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court has held that in cases of freedom fighters pension scheme, the
standard of proof required is not that of any criminal case or cases of any adjudication, by holding that such schemes are to honour and to mitigate
the sufferings of freedom fighters. The following passage of the Hon''ble Supreme Court is relevant to appreciate the real purpose of such scheme:
We have noticed with disgust that the respondent authorities have adopted a hypertechnical approach while dealing with the case of a freedom
fighter and ignored the basic principles/objectives of the Scheme intended to give the benefit to the sufferers in the freedom movement. The
contradictions and discrepancies, as noticed hereinabove, cannot be held to be material which could be made the basis of depriving the appellant
of his right to get the pension. The case of the appellant has been disposed of by ignoring the mandate of law and the Scheme. The impugned order
also appears to have been passed with a biased and closed mind, completely ignoring the verdict of this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari case. We
further feel that after granting the pension to the appellant, the respondents were not justified in rejecting his claim on the basis of material which
already existed, justifying the grant of pension in his favour. The appellant has, unnecessarily, been dragged to litigation for no fault of his. The High
Court has completely ignored its earlier judgments in Mohan Singh v. Union of India decided on 1-6-1995 and CWP No. 14442 of 1995 decided
on 11-12-1995.
This Court while considering the relevancy of the co-prisoner certificate lodged in the prison, in K.P. Natraj v. The State of Tamil Nadu and
Anr. 2004 MHC 069 , the Hon''ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam, as he then was, has held in para 7, 8 and 9 as follows:
The other essential condition is that the petitioner has to produce co-prisoner certificate as notified by the Government. It is the claim of the
petitioner that he had produced a certificate from the Freedom Fighter V.N. Arunachalam, who is getting pension as per order PPO 2147/S, who
was lodged in Coimbatore Central Prison and Alipuram Jail in Bellary District during the period 14.09.1942 to 11.09.1944. The petitioner also
produced another certificate from the Freedom Fighter one Nachipallan, who was lodged in Central Prison, Coimbatore during the period
29.09.1942 to 11.09.1944, who is also getting pension from the State Government vide order No.2706/S. Unfortunately, these certificates issued
by the Freedom Fighters, who were also lodged in the prison during the relevant period, who participated in the freedom struggle along with the
petitioner, were not accepted by the Government, as these freedom fighters are not recognised or given in the list of 15 freedom fighters identified
by the Government. Inasmuch as the two certifiers, namely, V.N. Arunachalam and Nachipallan � freedom fighters were lodged in Central
Prison, Coimbatore during the relevant time along with the petitioner, I am of the view that the Government is not justified in rejecting those
certificates and insisting that persons named in the list of 15 alone to be given such certificate. The petitioner has also produced copy of those
certificates vide page 2 and 3 of the typed set of papers.
It is also useful to refer one important fact that when the petitioner made an application for grant of State Freedom Fighter Pension through the
District Collector � second respondent herein, the matter was enquired by the District Committee and based on the enquiry, the District
Collector forwarded his report dated 17.02.1999 to the Government, recommending the case of the petitioner for grant of State Freedom Fighters
Pension. The said report finds place at page 4 and 5 of the typed set of papers. The report shows that the petitioner had obtained co-prisoner
certificate from one K.P. Thiruvengadam, Nachipallan and V.N. Arunachalam, who were imprisoned in the same District. The report further states
that the petitioner was a co-prisoner along with Nachipallan and V.N. Arunachalam; the said Nachipallan was getting State Freedom Fighters
Pension and V.N. Arunachalam was getting pension from the Central Government. All those details are available in the report of the District
Collector dated 17.02.1999.
In the light of the abundant materials, it is surprising that the first respondent has informed that the petitioner had not furnished details regarding
his confinement and the co-prisoner certificates produced by the petitioner are not acceptable. The Government has also erroneously rejected the
report of the District Collector, which is based on the enquiry made by the District Committee. The impugned order of the first respondent cannot
be sustained in view of the decisions rendered in W.P. No. 19152 of 1996 dated 21.01.2000 (PSJ), W.P. Nos. 15465, 15596 of 2001 dated
12.03.2002 (VKJ), which was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 2142 & 2143 of 2003 dated 01.07.2003.
In the present case, it is seen that the petitioner has made the application for pension on 25.04.1980 as it is seen in the letter of the Under
Secretary to Government dated 14.07.1980 addressed to the Collector of Ramnad at Madurai. After the Government of India rejected he has
renewed his application on 28.12.95 to the State Government which came to be rejected by the second respondent on 20.03.98.
In view of the same, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 20.03.1998, is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with
direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner to the Freedom Fighter''s Pension Scheme of the State of Tamilnadu from the date of his first
application dated 25.04.1980 and compute the amount to which the petitioner is eligible and such amount shall be paid by the respondents to the
petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.