AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides and perused the records.
The prayer of the petitioner is to grant pension under the Scheme for Pension for "Mozhipor Thyagi" which literally means Martyr in Tamil Language Agitation.
The writ petition was admitted on 23.04.2005. The petitioner�s prayer for an interim direction was not granted by this Court. On notice from this Court, the first respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 20.11.2005 and to which, a reply affidavit dated 07.02.2006 has been filed by the petitioner.
By the Tamil Nadu Act of 23 of 1983, known as "Tamil Nadu Payment of Pension to Tamil Scholars and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1983 was enacted by the State Legislature". u/s 2(d), the term "Martyr" is defined, which is as follows:
d. "martyr" means a person, who has evinced enthusiasm for Tamil language and Tamil culture and whole arriving to uphold his enthusiasm for Tamil language or in preserve the growth of Tamil language or to preserve the Tamil culture, has lost his life.
u/s 3 of the Act, it is guaranteed that the Government may sanction pension for the following two categories:
a) to every person who has exhibited conspicuous courage and nobility in his enthusiasm for the Tamil language or in his zeal to preserve the growth of Tamil language or to preserve the Tamil culture.
b) to the dependant of every martyr.
It is stated u/s 4(4)V, the Government may consider several factors u/s 4, for the grant of Sanction of Pension or Scholarship. u/s 4(4)V, one of the factor is the nature of suffering either by way of imprisonment or otherwise undergone by the applicant or martyr. What is described in 4(4)V is one of the guidelines and that itself cannot become the sole factor for the pension.
The Government has prescribed the Rules under the Act by G.O.Ms. No. 21, Tamil Development dated 20.06.1984. Under the said G.O. in Rule No. 5 it is stated any application sent to the Government for the benefit under the Act will be referred to an High Power Committee to be constituted by the Government. Only if the Government is satisfied about the eligibility of the person, it can consider the sanction, pension grant or scholarship and after taking note of the recommendations of the Committee, the Government may order the pension or the scholarship as the case may be.
The Government constituted a High Level Committee by G.O.Ms. No. 172, Tamil Development, dated 27.08.1996, under the Chairmanship of the Minister for Tamil Official Language and Culture. During the meeting held on 10.06.1998, it was decided that those who are convicted and imprisoned in various jails for more than 14 days alone shall be considered for sanction of pension under that Scheme.
Though the petitioner claimed that he was imprisoned for more than one month from 13.06.1965 to 11.06.1965, the report of the Collector was showed he was convited only one day, i.e. on 13.06.1965 and it was stated that the petitioner had produced a false certificate.
In the reply affidavit, the petitioner had not denied this averment. He merely stated that even for one day imprisonment will be covered by Section 4(4)V of the Act. Therefore, though in the typed set, the petitioner had produced a certificate from the Sub-Jail, Kodaikonal, showing that his date of admission to the jail was on 13.02.1965 and date of release was on 14.03.1965, his status was described as an undertrial.
The High Power Committee had laid down the guidelines that those who are convicted and imprisoned in jails for more than 14 days will be considered for pension. The petitioner by placing reliance upon Section 4(4)V of the Act stated that the prerequisite of 14 days conviction is not valid but it has no relevance to the present case since the said sub-section lists out five guidelines and it is only the 5th guidelines which states "suffering by way of an imprisonment by an applicant". Though it is argued that the High Power Committee cannot lays down guidelines by prescribing a minimum number of day of conviction and imprisonment, the said issue is not relevant and need not be considered by this Court in the case of the applicant.
It is an admitted fact that he was convicted for only one day and that cannot to be said to be suffering within the meaning of Section 4(4)V of the Act. Therefore, the Government was right in rejecting his claim based on the High Power Committee''s recommendations. If the petitioner feels that he was put to suffering it is for him to convince the Government about the same by placing materials with them. That has not been done so. It is for the petitioner to make out a fresh application and set out the circumstances for grant of pension.
But on no ground, he can question the guidelines prescribed by the High Power Committee in respect of Section 4(4)V as ultra vires of the Act or arbitrary. The writ petition will stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.