Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1055 (MAD)

R. Lakshmi v. Secretary to Government of India

2014-05-22

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. Tmt.R.Lakshmi, wife of Late Ramasamy, a Freedom Fighter, sought for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to pay Swatantrata Sainik Samman Central Pension from the date of the claim made by the petitioner’s husband on 20.07.1972 till his date of death on 23.11.2008 and the family pension from 23.11.2008 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. 2. According to the petitioner, her husband Late Ramasamy was a freedom fighter and was getting State pension from the second respondent under FF/INA State Pension. By proceedings, dated 7.10.1969, the second respondent accorded sanction to the petitioner’s husband, to receive State freedom fighters pension. The petitioner’s husband nominated the petitioner to receive the pension after his demise and it was also approved by the second respondent by letter No.16702/B/89-1, dated 9.3.1989. During his life time, her husband applied for grant of Swantantrata Sainik Samman Central Pension to the first respondent with all relevant documents, but the same was not sanction till his death. It is also stated that the petitioner’s husband died on 23.11.2008 and thereafter, the petitioner has been receiving family pension from the second respondent and thereby, according to the petitioner, she is automatically eligible for the Central Government Pension under Swantantrata Sainik Samman Central Pension. Since it has not been granted, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, wherein, it is stated that initially, Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme 1972 was introduced from 15.08.1972, which provided for the grant of pension of living freedom fighters and their families and on their death, to the widows of the martyrs. Later, the said scheme was liberalised in 1980 and it was renamed as “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980”. Under this scheme, a person is eligible only if he had undergone atleast one of the sufferings prescribed in the scheme, viz., imprisonment, detention for minimum six months against an executive order, underground sufferings/externment/internment, etc. on account of his participation in the freedom struggle. Participation in the INA and in Indian Independence League is also treated as participation in National Liberalisation Movement. on account of his participation in the freedom struggle. Participation in the INA and in Indian Independence League is also treated as participation in National Liberalisation Movement. As per the provisions of the said scheme, a person who claims jail suffering, is eligible for grant of Central Samman pension subject to proof of imprisonment by way of either primary evidence or secondary evidence. The claims of Samman pension can be considered by the by the Central Government only after duly verification and recommendation by the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations concerned in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Though the petitioner stated that her husband had made his application on 20.7.1972 for SSS Pension from Central Revenue and his file No.29/7918/73-FS VIII/INA-1, however, the file referred to by the petitioner and the application of her husband were not available in the records of the Ministry since the Ministry has not received any such application of the petitioner through the State Government along with their verification cum recommendatory report till date nor the petitioner annexed any document in typed set of papers to show that she had sent an advance copy of her husband’s application to the Central Government. The petitioner, at this belated stage, is making an experimental claim. The petitioner’s husband name was not found in the records of the first respondent. Since the norms were not fulfilled as per the provisions of the Scheme, the petitioner’s husband was not entitled for SSS Pension from Central Revenue and merely the petitioner’s husband was getting freedom fighter pension from the state, he is not entitled to SSS Pension without satisfying the criteria prescribed in the scheme. With these averments, the first respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record. 5. The contention of the petitioner that since her husband Late Ramasamy, being a Freedom fighter, was getting State Freedom fighters’ Pension, would be automatically entitled to Central Government Pension under Swantantrata Sainik Samman Central Pension, cannot be accepted. The question of automatic extension of Central Government pension on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was getting State Freedom Fighters Pension, will be putting a premium and opening a Pandora’s box of similar claims by others. In any event, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief sought for in this Writ Petition. 6. The question of automatic extension of Central Government pension on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was getting State Freedom Fighters Pension, will be putting a premium and opening a Pandora’s box of similar claims by others. In any event, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief sought for in this Writ Petition. 6. It is to be noted that the INA Form produced by the petitioner is only a self declaration which contains history of INA Personnel. Only a Xerox copy of the said INA Form was produced in the typed set of papers and it does not bear any signature of any of the officials. Though the Courts would come to the rescue of the freedom fighters and their families in the matter of granting pension, but in this case, the petitioner has not substantiated her case by producing any material documents much less recommendation by the State Government to the Central Government for grant of Central Government Pension to her husband. This Court, on humanitarian grounds, cannot extend the freedom fighters pensionary benefits to the petitioner, who miserably failed to substantiate her claim by producing necessary and relevant documents. The contention of the respondents that there is no proof from the petitioner and that there is no recommendation by the State Government/Union Territory Administration as per the norms and that there are no materials available in the Ministry, is well founded. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs.