Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3357 (MAD)

V. Loganathan v. The Union of India & Another

2010-08-05

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2010
Judgment .1. It is unfortunate that a living freedom fighter, who participated in the "Quit India Movement" during the year 1942 and spent a precious part of his life in prison with courage for the sake of freedom to this great country, who has claimed pension under ‘Swantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980’ has been driven from pillar to post for several years by the respondents without realising their responsibility towards such great people who are responsible for the freedom that we are enjoying today. Claiming the said pension, the petitioner made several requests right from the year 1994 onwards. The same was not considered. As a matter of fact, his claim was rejected earlier which resulted in W.P.No.3868 of 1994 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 210. 1998 set aside the same and directed the authorities to re-consider the same. Again the said request of the petitioner was rejected on 10.03.1999. He made yet another representation on 14.02.2000 after rectifying the defects noticed in the earlier order. That was again rejected on 14.02.2000. Challenging the same, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10729 of 2000. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 012. 2000 directed the Central Government to consider the fresh representation made by the petitioner on 22.07.1999 independently on the materials available on record without reference to the earlier order. Thereafter, the request of the petitioner was again rejected by the Central Government by an order in No.52/CC/293/2000-FF-2 dated 24.01.2001. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in the year 2001. .2. In the counter filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the claim of the petitioner was rejected because the claim was not made through the State Government as required under the Scheme. Having noticed the said stand taken by the Central Government, this Court passed an interim order on 112. 2009 directing the State Government to give views/remarks on the application submitted by the petitioner so as to enable the Central Government to process the issue further. It was also directed that before proceeding further in the matter, the second respondent namely the State Government shall give the petitioner or his duly authorised representative or the counsel an opportunity to submit any further records that may be required for considering the application and claim on merits. It was also directed that before proceeding further in the matter, the second respondent namely the State Government shall give the petitioner or his duly authorised representative or the counsel an opportunity to submit any further records that may be required for considering the application and claim on merits. Further, in paragraph No.7 of the said interim order this Court has directed as follows:- .“7. This interim direction is issued in this freedom fighter pension claim case taking into consideration the long delay caused due to two rounds of litigation claiming freedom fighter pension. In this case, the petitioner is pursuing the matter for more than two decades in vain. This Court is inclined to pass this interim direction to ensure that no injustice is done to the petitioner. The second respondent is directed to consider the claim and forward it to the Central Government with his remarks/report or as the case may be forthwith. The second respondent shall file a report to this Court on or before 212. 2009 as to the steps taken in the claim. The next date of hearing is fixed on 212. 2009. “ .3. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent that the Secretary to Government Political/Pension Department, Government of Tamil Nadu by letter No.41065/Pp1/09-04 dated 11.01.2010 has submitted his remarks to the Central Government. The original file is produced for perusal of this Court. In paragraph No.5 of the said report, the State Government has recommended as follows:- .“In view of the reasons stated above, I am directed that the request of the petitioner to consider his application for sanction of Swantrata Sainik Samman Pension may be re-considered and appropriate decision may be taken in this case. In the very same report, the State Government has further stated that the petitioner has produced all the relevant documents required for sanction of the said contention.” 4. Despite the above report dated 11.01.2010, the Central Government has not acted swiftly in the matter and so far no order has been passed as directed by this Court in the interim order dated 112. 2009. Though, this matter was listed subsequently on several occasions, the report, as directed by this Court earlier, has not been submitted by the Central Government. 2009. Though, this matter was listed subsequently on several occasions, the report, as directed by this Court earlier, has not been submitted by the Central Government. This only shows that the Officers who are incharge of the subject are not sensitive to the sentiments of a freedom fighter who has been fighting for such a paltry amount of pension for more than two decades. It is unfortunate that even the interim order of this Court has not been complied with. As I have already stated, so far no report of compliance has also been submitted by the Central Government to this Court. 5. In these circumstances, when this matter was listed before this Court on the previous hearings, the learned counsel on record for the petitioner withdrew his appearance and therefore, in the cause list, the name of the petitioner was printed. But the petitioner has not made any appearance before this Court. Instead, on 17.06.2010, along with a copy of the interim order of this Court, the petitioner has sent a letter by registered post to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court wherein, he has expressed his anguish stating that for the past several years though he has been driven from pillar to post, he has not been able to get the pension. He has further stated that he has been suffering from lot of mental agony, torture, physical ailments, monetary constraints, etc. The said letter has been placed on record along with the writ petition. On noticing the woes, agony and anguish expressed by the petitioner, it may be difficult for any one to contain himself without shedding tears. 6. At this juncture, every citizen of this Country should think of the sufferings of those great men who fought for freedom of this great country. If not these great people are respected who else are going to be respected by the officials who are in the helm of affairs dealing with the files like the one which is under consideration in this writ petition. If this Court is not able to render justice to the petitioner at least now, then it will only result in erosion in the faith of the people in the very system of ‘justice delivery’. 7. If this Court is not able to render justice to the petitioner at least now, then it will only result in erosion in the faith of the people in the very system of ‘justice delivery’. 7. At this juncture, I may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India (2001 AIR SCW 3843) wherein it has been held as follows:- "The scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of matryrs. It has to be kept in mind 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. It has also to be kept in mind that in the partition of the country most of citizens who suffered imprisonment were handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. The problem of getting the record from the foreign country is very cumbersome and expensive. Keeping in mind the object of the scheme, the concerned authorities are required that in appreciating the scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rationale and not a technical approach is required to be adopted. It has also to be kept in mind that the claimants of the scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their life for the country." It was further observed as follows: "The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As the object of the scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by scheme have suffered for the country about half a century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by scheme have suffered for the country about half a century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the scheme. The case of the claimants under this scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touch-stone of the test of beyond reasonable doubt. Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence.” 8. Inthis background, considering all the above facts, I am not able to refrain myself without imposing a heavy cost on the Central Government to be paid to the petitioner. Having regard to the agonies of the petitioner, old age, number of litigations, etc., I am of the considered opinion that imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/- will alone meet the ends of justice, besides issuing a direction to the Central Government to consider the claim of the petitioner together with the recommendation made by the Government of Tamil Nadu and to issue appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I am hopeful that while considering the claim of the petitioner, the first respondent will have regard to the above observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh’s case (cited supra). 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner along with the recommendation made by the State Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as indicated above. It is further directed that the first respondent shall pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. 10. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order forthwith to the respondents. It is further directed that the first respondent shall pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. 10. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order forthwith to the respondents. List this writ petition again after two months for reporting compliance of payment of cost. The Registry is further directed to forward a free copy of this order forthwith to the petitioner also.