Judgment : Petitioner Marakkal, the wife of late S. Rengasamy, filed this writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order in the nature of writ by calling for the records from respondents 1 and 2, i.e. the Government of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, and Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Public Department, Madras respectively, in their proceedings No. 129/174/81-FFSZ dated 12-9-1985 and L.W. No. 8879/81-14-Public (pp. IV) Department, D/-23-4-1986 and quash the same and direct the first and second respondents to grant pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (Centre) and Freedom Fighters Pension (State) Pension Scheme. .2. In support of the said writ petition, the petitioner has sworn to an affidavit in which she has stated that her husband, late S. Rengasamy was a Freedom Fighter and he participated in the individual Sathyagraha in 1941 and also in Quit India Movement in 1942 against the British Government and he was imprisoned and suffered imprisonment in various jails for more than 11 months. Her husband applied for the grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, which is to be granted by the first respondent and also to the second respondent for the grant of pension payable by the State Government. The Schemes stipulate that if a person had undergone imprisonment for more than 6 months, the Central Government will grant pension and if a person had undergone imprisonment, for 21 days, the State Government will grant the pension. Since her husband had undergone imprisonment for more than 11 months, he is entitled to get the petition both from State Government and Central Government. 3. The first respondent in his proceedings No. l29/174/81-FFSZ, D/-12-9-l985 rejected the application on the ground that her husbands case does not come under the purview of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, D/-1-8-1980. As far as the second respondent is concerned, the State Government by its letter No. 8979/84-14 Public (PPIV) Department, D/-28-4-l936, rejected the claim on the ground that he has not proved by any acceptable documentary evidence. Challenging the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. .4. On behalf of the first respondent, one Shri A. Banerjee, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, has sworn to a counter-affidavit. Challenging the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. .4. On behalf of the first respondent, one Shri A. Banerjee, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, has sworn to a counter-affidavit. In the said counter-affidavit, he has stated that the petitioners late husband had applied for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension in 1981, claiming imprisonment suffering from 1/-10-1942 to 7-7-1943, but his case was rejected on the ground that his claimed jail suffering for at least 6 months could not be established either from official records or from collateral evidence. He has also stated that in the pension application, late Rengasamy had not indicated the name of any dependent member of his family. The counter-affidavit futher reads that there was no material to show that the petitioners late husband had actually undergone imprisonment at least for 6 months or released prematurely on bail on furnishing surety bond or tendering apology. Since ttle petitioners late husband claimed suffering could not be established either from official records or from collateral evidence that he had actually suffered imprisonment at least for six months, it was not found possible to grant the said benefit to him. On these grounds the first respondent asked this Court to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits. 5. Before considering the rival submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties, it will be better to refer to the order passed by the Central as well as the State Governments. The order passed by tbe Central Government reads as follows: "No. 129/174/81-FFSZ-Government of India Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Home Affairsj/Grih Mantralaya, New Delhi. To Shri S. Rengaswamy, Dasanur P.O., via Mettupalayam 641 301, Coimbatore District (TN). Sub: Grant of Swatant rata Sainik Samman Pension from Central Revenues Effective from 1-8-1980. Sir, I am directed to refer to your application letters D/-25-10-1981 and regret to say that your case does not come under the purview of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1981, and thus it is rejected for the following reasons: 1. As your jail suffering for at least six months has not been established either from official records or from collateral evidence. 2. The State Government after re-verification of your claimed suffering have not specifically recommended your case. Yours faithfully. Sd/- (T.D. Dua) For Under Secretary to the Government of India. As your jail suffering for at least six months has not been established either from official records or from collateral evidence. 2. The State Government after re-verification of your claimed suffering have not specifically recommended your case. Yours faithfully. Sd/- (T.D. Dua) For Under Secretary to the Government of India. The order passed by the State Government reads as follows: "Government of Tamil Nadu Letter No. 8979/84-14, Public (PP IV) Department, Fort, St. George, Madras-9. Dated : 28-4-1986. From Smt. Sheela Balakrishnan, lAS, Joint Secretary to Government. To Thiru S. Rangasamy, S/o Sivanappa Gowder, Dasanur P.p. (Via) Mahadevapuram, Coimbatore District Sir, Sub: Pension - Freedom Fighters Pension (State) - Coimbatore District - Request of Thiru. S. Rangasamy - Regarding. Ref: 1. From the Collector of Coimbatore, Letter No. 1176/83 (sic), D/-7-11-1983.- 2. Your application D/-26-1-1984. 3. From the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bellary, Lr. No. JC3/391-C/1945/84, D/- 8- 81984. I am directed to state that the Government regret their inability to comply with your request for the grant of State Freedom Fighters Pension on the ground that your claim of imprisonment for the cause of the nations freedom struggle has not been corroborated by any acceptable documentary evidence. Yours faithfully, Sd/- For Joint Secretary to Government." 6. I may mention here that on behalf of the State, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Writ) Produced before the Court, a letter which reads as follows : "R.O. W.P. No. 11295/86, dated 10-11-95 Sir, Sub: W.P. No. 11295/86 High Court, Madras - Filed by Tmt. Marakkal - Prayer of the Writ Petitioner - Complied with - Infructuous - Reg. Ref: Government Lr. No. 23782/PP-IV. 2/94-3 dated 9-3-1995. In the above letter the Government have informed that Tmt. Marakkal, Wife of Late S. Rangasamy was sanctioned State Freedom Fighters Pension in F.F.P.O. No. 12965, Public (PP. IV) Department D/-9-8-1 987 and hence the prayer of the Writ Petitioner has been conceded and the writ petition has become infructuous. I request you to direct the office to post the above writ petition for dismissal as infructuous. Sd, Addl. Govt. Marakkal, Wife of Late S. Rangasamy was sanctioned State Freedom Fighters Pension in F.F.P.O. No. 12965, Public (PP. IV) Department D/-9-8-1 987 and hence the prayer of the Writ Petitioner has been conceded and the writ petition has become infructuous. I request you to direct the office to post the above writ petition for dismissal as infructuous. Sd, Addl. Govt. Pleader" A copy of the said letter has been served on the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner also and the learned Advocate has fairly submitted that as far as the prayer against the State Government is concerned, the said relief had been complied with by the State Government and hence the petitioner is not pressing the said prayer in view of the said compliance. .7. The main grounds of attack on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Advocate were that the first respondent was not justified in refusing the prayer of the petitioner to grant the pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (Centre). He pointed out that there were sufficient materials produced by late Rengasamy, husband of the petitioner, before the first respondent to show that he was imprisoned for nearly 10 months and suffered the said imprisonment in Alipuram Camp Jail, now called Bellary Central Prison. He has also pointed out that it is not in dispute that one K. Ramani suffered imprisonment during the relevant time in the said prison along with the husband of the petitioner. As could be seen from the letter issued by the said Ramani, he has stated that the petitioners husband was along with him in the jail for a period of more than six months. He has further submitted that when the petitioner applied for the extract of the convict register from the Alipuram Jail, which is now called as Bellary Jail, he was informed that the entire register pertaining to the month of October, 1942 is completely in torn condition and the names and other identification could not be taken from the said register. He has further submitted that when the petitioner applied for the extract of the convict register from the Alipuram Jail, which is now called as Bellary Jail, he was informed that the entire register pertaining to the month of October, 1942 is completely in torn condition and the names and other identification could not be taken from the said register. The further contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner was that several persons have got pension on the guise of the recommendation and the certificate issued by said K. Ramani and the said Ramani himself has written a letter to the husband of the petitioner on 10-5-1985, stating why he alone should be singled out for not taking this certificate into consideration. He has further pointed out that there is no stipulation or rule that there should be official entry or extract produced so far as the pensions are granted only on the certificate issued by the co-prisoner. In the present case, a certificate issued by the co-prisoner has been produced by the petitioners husband and it has not been considered on irrelevant grounds by the first respondent. On these grounds, the learned Advocate submitted that the writ petition is entitled to be allowed. 8. On behalf of the first respondent, Mr. S. Veeraraghavan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, contended that late Rengasamy has not produced any material to show that he had undergone imprisonment as a Freedom Fighter for more than six months. He pointed out that the first respondent was justified in refusing the said prayer as late Rengasamy has failed to produce sufficient materials to have the benefit of the said scheme. His second submission was that there is no material to show that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Rengasamy so as to have the benefit. Unless she establishes her relationship with the late Rengasamy as his wife, she is not entitled for the relief, which she has claimed. These are the only two contentions put forward by the learned Advocate on behalf of the first respondent. 9. Now let me examine the rival contentions. At the outset I will mention here that the State Government has complied with the request of the petitioner. The State Government has granted the said prayer to the petitioner treating her as the wife of late Rengasamy. 9. Now let me examine the rival contentions. At the outset I will mention here that the State Government has complied with the request of the petitioner. The State Government has granted the said prayer to the petitioner treating her as the wife of late Rengasamy. This will be one of the circumstances to consider the prayer of the petitioner even before the Central Government. .10. According to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, she has signed herself as the wife of late Rengasamy and she has stated that her husband was arrested on 12-5-1941 at Madras and on the same day sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month and was released on 11-6-1941. Again he was charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 34(6)(c) and (k) read with Section 38(5) of the then Defence of India Rules in Calendar Case No.5/ 42 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, and he was sentenced to under- go 10 months rigorous imprisonment and he was lodged in Central Prison, Coimbatore, on 12-10-1942. The extract of the Convict Register in respect of late Rengasamy issued by the fourth respondent will show the relevant particulars. The date of release, according to the said entry, is 11-8-1943. Within a short period of three days, on 15-10-1942, he was transferred to the then Alipuram Camp Jail, Bellary, and the said fact of Transfer was entered in the register maintained at the Coimbatore Central Prison and he had undergone imprisonment till 11-8-1943, the complete period of ten months, and after that period he has been released from the jail. 11. Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, it was admitted that late Rengasamy has actually undergone imprisonment from 11-10-1942 to 7-7-1943 in Alipuram Camp Jail, Bellary, and in support of his claim, he had produced co-prisoners certificate dt. 20-2-81 from one Shri K. Ramani, M.L.A., who had certified that Shri Rengasamy was a co-prisoner in Coimbatore Central Jail and Alipuram Camp Jail, Bellary from Sept., 1942 to April 1943, i.e., about 9 months. However, the said counter-affidavit says that in the certificate issued by K. Ramani in respect of another coprisoner, dt. 23-2-1943, the Said Ramani had testified that Shri Rengasamy was with him at Alipuram Camp Jail, Bellary, from January, 1943 to April, 1943 i.e. for a period of four months. However, the said counter-affidavit says that in the certificate issued by K. Ramani in respect of another coprisoner, dt. 23-2-1943, the Said Ramani had testified that Shri Rengasamy was with him at Alipuram Camp Jail, Bellary, from January, 1943 to April, 1943 i.e. for a period of four months. In the said certificate, he did not mention that Shri Rengasamy was with him at Coimbatore Central Jail. Since there was no clear and clinching material to show that said Rengasamy was in jail for more than six months, his prayer was turned down. Further, the said counter-affidavit says that Shri Ramanis certificate is also not acceptable as he had not produced any documentary evidence either from the jail or from Court about his own imprisonment for the certified period to tally their coprisonership. In another place in the said counter-affidavit, it has been mentioned that in cases where jail or Court records are not available to prove the applicants claimed imprisonment, then co-prisoners certificates are accepted as evidence, who had actually undergone imprisonment along with the applicants and possess evidence from official records such as jail certificate or Court judgment for the certified period to tally their co-prisonership. 12. As far as the second objection of the learned Advocate for the first respondent is concerned, now the State Government has granted pension to the petitioner treating her as the wife of late Rengasamy. Further, even in the counter-affidavit, Rengasamy has been referred as the late husband of the petitioner and hence there is no force in the contention of the learned Advocate for the first respondent that the petitioner has not shown her relationship with late Rengasamy. Just because in his application filed by the late Rengasamy he had not indicated any dependent member of his family it cannot be possible for me to hold that the petitioner is not the wife of late Rengasamy and this contention has to be rejected. 13. Having regard to the facts narrated above and also the fact that the State Government has granted pension to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the first respondent was not justified in refusing the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, for the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition and quash the order dt. 13. Having regard to the facts narrated above and also the fact that the State Government has granted pension to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the first respondent was not justified in refusing the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, for the reasons stated above, I allow this writ petition and quash the order dt. 12-9-1985 passed by the first respondent in proceedings No. 129/174-FFSZ and direct the first respondent to grant pension to the petitioner under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (Centre). Three months time from today has been granted to comply with the said direction. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.