Murugaiyan v. Union of India and Another — 1999 DIGILAW 23 (MAD)

Judgment :- The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant Central Government pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (SSS Scheme) from 15th August, 1972 in pursuance of the petitioner's application dated 16-11-1990. 2. In brief, the petitioner is a freedom fighter from Pondicherry Union Territory, whose name is admittedly found in the Directory containing the name of the freedom fighters of Pondicherry Union Territory prepared by the respondents themselves. In the said Directory, the petitioner's name and his contribution in the freedom struggle are stated as follows :- "497. Thiru S. Murugaiyan, s/o. (Late) Swaminathan - Born on 24-8-1932. He joined the movement in 1952. He was subjected to very harsh treatment at the hands of their French Government. He was arrested and detained by the French Police without trial. Because of the harassment of the police, he externed to the borders of Karaikal and joined camps. He lost his properties when he was in self-exile. Was in self-exile from 1950 to October 1954. Drawing State pension. Address : No. 22-A, First Street, Suriyagandhi Nagar, Pondicherry." Therefore, the petitioner claims that he is entitled for the Central Government Pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as SSS Scheme), as it was granted to one N. Rajagopalan, whose name is also found in the Directory maintained in this regard, which reads as follows :- "724. Thiru. N. Rajagopalan, s/o. (Late) Natarajan. Born on 7-8-1921. A holder of Certificate of Honour. As president of the Textile Mills Clerks Union, he assembled about 300 Clerks along with 5000 workers and conducted a procession on 1-3-1954 raising slogans against the French rule. When the police tried to arrest him, he escaped from them and moved to the borders along with K. Goubert, former, Chief Minister. He served as a captain to the force at the borders. He made picketings around the borders and played a very courageous and wise role during this period. He worked with great devotion and patriotism in exile from March to October 1954. He was member of the Freedom Fighters Committee for a long time. Drawing State Pension. Address : No. 248, Bharathy Street, Pondicherry." 3. He made picketings around the borders and played a very courageous and wise role during this period. He worked with great devotion and patriotism in exile from March to October 1954. He was member of the Freedom Fighters Committee for a long time. Drawing State Pension. Address : No. 248, Bharathy Street, Pondicherry." 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners any person who has suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jail before independence, is eligible to get the Central Government Freedom Fighters Pension, which is not disputed by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner, admittedly was arrested, detained by the French Police without bail harassed by the Police and when the petitioner was in exile from 1950 to October 1954, and lost his properties. The respondent, without properly appreciating the above admitted facts, denied the pension, even though the petitioner is eligible for the same and such denial is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the respondents are paying pension to a similarly placed freedom fighter, namely N. Rajagopalan. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision- (a) Gabriel, D. v. The Government of India, reported in (1991) 1 Mad LW 279; and (b) S. Rajamani v. Union of India, reported in 1997 AIR(Madras) 280. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the respondents may be directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 16-11-1990. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 6. In this regard, it is relevant to observe that this Court in Gabriel D. v. The Government of India, reported in (1991) 1 Mad LN 279, has held as follows :- "Held, the rules for the grant of Central Government Pension and the mode of proof are set out in the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. In a subsequent press note this requirement was slightly modified. I am at a loss to know why the respondents are denying the claim of the petitioner on purely technical grounds. Schemes are introduced by the Government not for the purpose of adding feathers to their cap. Such claims are not for the sake of adding to the record of achievement. These schemes are essential to benefit the freedom fighters who had suffered for the cause of freedom. Schemes are introduced by the Government not for the purpose of adding feathers to their cap. Such claims are not for the sake of adding to the record of achievement. These schemes are essential to benefit the freedom fighters who had suffered for the cause of freedom. To say that the petitioner has no statutory right and the grant of pension is gratuitous is most uncharitable. The proof of the pudding is in its eating. This is certainly not a case where the respondents can take an inflexible attitude and try to interpret the rules too strictly. The razor edge interpretation is certainly not called for in a case like this. It is really surprising to see as to why the State of Tamil Nadu should be so anxious to prevent the petitioner from getting the pension. Neither the counter-affidavits nor the replies of the respondents give any specific reason as to why the certificates produced by petitioner should not be accepted. The certifiers are admittedly persons who are receiving pension from the Central Government. Necessity of the certifiers being a sitting legislator or a past legislator has been dispensed with under the present guidelines. I am, therefore, clearly satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of pension by the Central Government under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. I have already pointed out that in cases like this one must look into the overall aspect of the claim and not dissect the requirements of law in such a manner so as to deny the claim of the petitioner. It is not as if the petitioner is not a freedom fighter at all. What he lacks according to the respondents is proof as required by the guidelines prescribed by the Government. I, therefore, set aside the order of the first respondent dated 6-11-1989 and direct the first respondent to grant pension under the above- said scheme from the date of the petitioner's second application, viz. from 27-5-1979. However, I am not inclined to grant interest at the rate of 18% as claimed in the writ petition. The payment of arrears to some extent will alleviate the sufferings of the petitioner. The arrears of pension shall be paid by the first respondent on or before 30-4-1991. Future pension will be paid every month in accordance with the scheme." 7. The payment of arrears to some extent will alleviate the sufferings of the petitioner. The arrears of pension shall be paid by the first respondent on or before 30-4-1991. Future pension will be paid every month in accordance with the scheme." 7. Similarly, Division Bench of this Court in S. Rajamani v. Union of India, reported in 1997 AIR(Madras) 200, held as follows : " We have carefully considered the respective submissions of either side. Though Mr. Santhanam tried to reiterate the stand taken in the communication referred to above on behalf of the Central Government, we are unable to appreciate or approve of the stand so taken. There is no serious controversy over the position that the conditions for the award of Thamirapatra and for the grant of Samman Pension are almost similar. But the stand taken by the Central Government in the communication is that while issuing the Thamirapatra, the Central Government had not scrutinised or sifted the materials in such careful manner, as they are now undertaking a scrutiny, while awarding the samman pension and that in some of the cases, the award of Thamirapatra has also been cancelled on coming to know that the applicants therein, never had undergone the minimum period of imprisonment, etc. However, in the light of the indisputable position that the criteria for the grant of Thamirapatra as also the Samman Pension now under consideration, are almost the same and the fact that the petitioner has been awarded Thamirapatra and the petitioner is still in possession of the same without the same being revoked or cancelled by the Competent Authority for genuine or justifiable reasons, it cannot be contended legitimately by the respondents that on account of lack of proper and sufficient care and scrutiny during the time of grant of Thamirapatra, it cannot be relied upon ipso facto for the grant of Samman Pension. The stand taken by the respondent-Central Government, in our view, appears to be very unreasonable and cannot have merit of our acceptance. The Thamirapatras issued, were with a definite purpose in recognition of the service rendered by the Freedom Fighters in the freedom struggle and could be legitimately presumed to be only on being satisfied with the existence, (sic) then of the requirements stipulated for the same. The Thamirapatras issued, were with a definite purpose in recognition of the service rendered by the Freedom Fighters in the freedom struggle and could be legitimately presumed to be only on being satisfied with the existence, (sic) then of the requirements stipulated for the same. Consequently, as long as the Thamirapatra issued to the petitioner is allowed to be retained by him without properly revoking or cancelling the same, the invitable consequence flowing from the same, must be also recognised. Otherwise, the Thamirapatra granted will have no meaning or significance and purpose and it is futile to contend at this point of time that such Thamirapatras were also issued in certain cases without proper scrutiny. If that is the stand or position even now, the respondents are not disable from cross-checking the genuineness of the award of Thamirapatra in any individual case and unless and untill the Thamirapatra is cancelled in any particular case, for just and sufficient reasons after due notice and opportunity to the recipient concerned, the recipient of Thamirapatra must be considered and held to have satisfied the requirements for the grant of 'Samman Pension' as well as the Freedom Fighters Pension to be granted by the State Government. The Respondents, in our view are estopped from taking such a plea to deny the legitimate (sic). As a matter of fact, in our earlier judgment in R. Thangavelu v. Govt. of India, 1994 Writ LR 137, we have held in para 43 thereof as under : 43. Materials to be taken into account before passing orders :- The Government should also take into account the book published by them under the title 'who is who' containing the names of Freedom Fighters and act upon the same. Equally, when once the Central Government grants the pension after satisfying themselves about the fulfilment of the conditions stipulated in the Scheme, it will not be fair for the State Government to reject the claim of the State Pension. Similarly, if the State Government grants pension to a Freedom Fighter, the same should be accepted by the Central Government and no further proof should be insisted upon. Similarly, if the State Government grants pension to a Freedom Fighter, the same should be accepted by the Central Government and no further proof should be insisted upon. In other words, once either the State Government or the Central Government grants pension to a particular Freedom Fighter, he must automatically get the other pension either under the State or under the Central Government Scheme without any further enquiry, on the claimants satisfying the guidelines, and the Government cannot reject the claim summarily that he is not a Freedom Fighter at all. Further, when once Thamirapatra has been granted recognising the valuable service rendered during freedom struggle, the concerned Government should automatically grant pension without any further enquiry or proof.' 8. In view of the above petitioner cannot be denied Sammon Pension to be granted by the Central Government as also the Freedom Fighters' Pension to be granted by the State Government. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and there shall be a writ of mandamus prayed for directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the grant of Samman Pension and also the Freedom Fighters' Pension to be granted by the State Government from 17-11-1983 (sic) in the light of our decision referred to supra and the directions contained in this order and pass appropriate orders sanctioning the said pension to the pensioners, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by them. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the cases and considering the grievance of the petitioner and the relief sought for in the above writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents have failed to discharge their obligation to consider the case of the petitioner, in the light of the Directories maintained by themselves, inspite of an application filed by the petitioner claiming Central Government Freedom Fighters Pension as early as on 16-11-1990. Because, of the failure on the part of the respondents, petitioner was compelled to approach this Court seeking remedy in spite of his struggles for the freedom of this country. Because, of the failure on the part of the respondents, petitioner was compelled to approach this Court seeking remedy in spite of his struggles for the freedom of this country. Since the respondents have failed to consider the noble contributions of the petitioner, I am obliged to direct them to consider the case of the petitioner, in the light of the ratio laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above and pass appropriate orders as to the claim : the Central Government Freedom Fighters Pension by the petitioner with all arrears payable to him, within twelve weeks from the date of a copy of this order. Writ petition is ordered accordingly, with a cost of Rs.1,000/- WMP No. 1293 of 1993 is dismissed. Order accordingly.