Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 56 (MAD)

Rm. Ambalam v. Union of India

2002-01-31

P.SATHASIVAM

body2002
Judgment : 1. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent-Union of India dated 12.1.2000 conveying their inability to accede to the request of the petitioner for grant of SSS Pension, the petitioner has filed W.P.No. 6669 of 2000 for quashing the said order and for consequential direction to the first respondent to admit him to the Freedom Fighters pension of Union of India. The very same petitioner challenges the order of the third respondent-Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Political Pension II) Department, State of Tamil Nadu dated 3.2.1998, rejecting his request for state pension in W.P.No.6670 of 2000. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was actively involved in the Freedom Struggle ever since 1937. He participated in all the programmes and activities of the then Congress High Command. On 18.8.1942,he participated in the demonstration and picketing before the Sub Magistrate’s Court, Tiruvaadaanai. He was arrested and beaten by by the police. He was kept in the lock-up without any enquiry nearly 30 days. Thereafter, he continued to participate in the freedom struggle. Warrant was issued and award offered for his arrest. He went underground from September, 1942 to August, 1943 and continued in the freedom struggle. Warrant was issued and award offered for his arrest. He went underground from September, 1942 to August, 1943 and continued in the freedom struggle. On 28.8.72, he applied to the respondents for being admitted to the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme of the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu. He enclosed certificate dated 20.5.85 from Yeganathan, Freedom Fighter, certifying that he took part in 1942 Freedom Movement at Devakottai; certificate dated 5.6.92 issued by R.N. Dhinamani, certifying that he participated in the Quit India Movement and certificate dated 16.1.1990 issued by the Inspector of Police, Thiruvaadaanai, certifying that the copy of the Arrest Warrant issued against him is not available as the records were destroyed due to efflux of time. He also forwarded certificate dated 5.2.99 issued by G. Ganesan Servai @ Gandhi Servai, certifying that he remained underground from September, 1942 to August, 1943. Further, without considering those relevant materials, he received a letter of the third respondent dated 3.2.98 (which is impugned in W.P.No.6670 of 2000), rejecting his application. He also forwarded certificate dated 5.2.99 issued by G. Ganesan Servai @ Gandhi Servai, certifying that he remained underground from September, 1942 to August, 1943. Further, without considering those relevant materials, he received a letter of the third respondent dated 3.2.98 (which is impugned in W.P.No.6670 of 2000), rejecting his application. Thereafter, that is on 19.11.98 and 13.7.99, the government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs addressed the third respondent for comments of the State Government on his representation and the report of the 4th respondent. Subsequently, he was served with the order of the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 12.1.2000 informing him that his case has been re-examined and that he was not eligible for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension from the Central Revenue as the Government of Tamil Nadu has not recommended his case for grant of S.S.S. Pension. In such circumstances, inasmuch as the impugned orders are contrary to law and are vitiated by material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction and suffer from errors apparent from the face of the records, having no other remedy, filed the present writ petitions. 3. On behalf of the Union of India, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi alone has filed counter affidavit in both the writ petitions. After highlighting the Central Freedom Fighters Scheme, namely, Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, it is stated that the claim made by the petitioner was examined under the provisions of the Scheme and in the absence of any acceptable documentary evidence from official records to substantitate his claim of rope-beating or arrest warrant issued by the Court, rejected his claim for Central pension. The State Government has not filed counter affidavit conveying their stand to this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 5. In sofar as the claim for Central pension, namely, S.S.S. Pension, it is seen from the counter affidavit of the first respondent that only specified category of Freedom Fighters are eligible for Samman Pension who fulfill the conditions of the scheme by furnishing the proof of claimed sufferings of the nature and in the manner specified in the scheme itself. In sofar as the claim for Central pension, namely, S.S.S. Pension, it is seen from the counter affidavit of the first respondent that only specified category of Freedom Fighters are eligible for Samman Pension who fulfill the conditions of the scheme by furnishing the proof of claimed sufferings of the nature and in the manner specified in the scheme itself. As rightly argued by the learned Additional Central Government Standing counsel, in the case of M.L. Bhandari and others v. Union of India , AIR 1993 S.C 2127 , the petitioner would undoubtedly be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme provided, he produces the relevant materials in support of his claim. Their Lordships have further held that as regards the sufficiency of the proof, the scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced before the Government. They also held that it is not possible for the Supreme Court to scrutinise the documents which according to the petitioners, they had produced in support of their cl aim and pronounce upon their genuineness and that it is the function of the Government to do so. Their Lordships further held that the pension should, of course, be sanctioned only after the required proof is produced. The said decision in Bhandari’s case referred to above was reiterated in the subsequent case, namely, Union of India v. Mohan Singh and others , JT 1996 (8) S.C. 341. Though the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7994 of 1991 R. Thangavelu v. Government of India and another , 1994 WLR 137 has formulated certain guidelines based on the scheme, on 7.2.94 the very same Division Bench in W.M.P.No. 1655 of 94 in W.P.No. 7194 of 91 clarified that, “....We are of the view that though our order itself sufficiently takes care of the position, but since a genuine doubt has been entertained by the parties we direct the insertion of the following words in paragrpaph 43 of the order in W.P.No. 7194 of 1991 dated 16-12-1993 after the words....”or the claimants satisfying the guidelines” and before the words and the Government cannot reject....” including the duration of the period of imprisonment contemplated under the Central Government Scheme....” I have also carefully perused the various clauses in the Central SSS Pension Scheme, 1980. The Scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced before the Government. The Scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced before the Government. As observed by the Supreme Court, it is not possible for this Court to scrutinise the documents which, according to the petitioner, he had produced in support of his claim and pronounce upon their genuineness. It is the function of the Government to do so. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in the following decisions:- (1) R. Chinnasamy v. The Govt., of India and another , W.P.No. 14778/99 dated 27-11-2000 (DB); (2) P.M. Vadivel v. Govt., of India and others W.P.No. 19490 of 99 dated 28-11 -2000 (DB); (3) A.P. Alagiriswamy v. Govt., of India and another , W.P.No. 7823 of 1999 dated 24.11.2000 (DB); (4) R. Kannan v. The Govt., of India and another , W.P.No. 8997 of 2000 dated 21.11.2001 (DB). 6. The perusal of the impugned orders of the Union of India as well as the State Government, and the various clauses in the Scheme and the decisions referred to above clearly show that only on placing relevant materials in terms of the Scheme by the persons concerned, the authority can scrutinise the same and arrive at a conclusion one way or other. To put it clear, it is the function of the respective Government to assess the claim based on the materials placed in terms of the respective Scheme and take a decision and it is not possible for this Court to scrutinise the documents and pronounce upon their genuineness. In the light of such conclusion, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Unless the petitioner/claimant places acceptable materials in terms of the Scheme/guidelines, the respective Government cannot be blamed for not granting pension as claimed. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. The petitioner, however, is permitted to make fresh application to both the Governments supported by relevant acceptable materials sasitfying the guidelines or clauses in the respective Scheme. If any such application is made, both the Governments are directed to consider the same in the light of the various pronouncements by this Court as well as the apex Court expeditiously and intimate the same to the petitioner. With these observations, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.