In a writ appeal under Letters Patent, the High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order denying the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. The court held the petitioner failed to satisfy eligibility scheme requirements.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 09.10.2017
Coram
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
AND THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A.No.1518 of 2012
E.V.Narayanasamy ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1. The Government of India, Rep. by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi - 110 003. 2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Secretary, Public (P.P.I.) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 25.04.2011 made in W.P.No.23831 of 2010, on the file of this Court.
W.P.No.23831 of 2010 : This Writ Petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the petitioner's Freedom Fighters Pension 52/CC/TN/89/2006-FF(SZ) dated 07.04.2010 and to quash the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 07.04.2010 and direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 02.09.2009 in the light of the order passed by the State Government by its proceedings No.14020 dated 03.06.2009 to recognize the petitioner as Central Government Freedom Fighter and grant Freedom Fighter Pension as provided under the SWATANTRATA SAINIK SAMMAN (S.S.S.) PENSION SCHEME.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.K.Gunasekar
Senior Panel Counsel (Central Government) for R1 Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy Special Government Pleader for R2
J U D G M E N T
[Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.]
The writ appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 25.04.2011 made in W.P.No.23831 of 2010, on the file of this Court.
3.1 The petitioner was actively involved in the Freedom Struggle. During the pre-independence period he had actively participated in all agitations. When MAHATMA GANDHI called to the nation to participate in the "QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT" in the year 1942-1943, he along with other Congress activities organized hoisting Three Colour Flag in the Thiruppathur area and on 05.02.1943, he along with other went to Jolarpet Railway Station, to hoist Three Colour Flag a top of the Railway Station Building and the Police detained him in the Jolarpet Police Station under their custody and ill-treated him. On 07.02.1943, the Police took him to the Vellore Court for judicial custody from police lock-up and he had been detained at Central Prison, Vellore.
3.2 The petitioner on becoming aware that the Government of India is honouring the freedom fighters with pension and THIYAGI title, he made a representation to the Government in the month of August 2005 and gave another representation in the year August 2006, which was forwarded by the District Collector, Vellore to the second respondent, who in turn rejected the proposal sent by the District Collector, Vellore by proceedings dated 21.02.20016. The said order was put to challenge in a Writ Petition in W.P.No.22140 of 2006 and this Court, by an order dated 22.01.2009, directed the second respondentAdditional Secretary, Public (Political) Pension Department, Chennai, to consider the petitioner's case sympathetically and shall pass appropriate orders. Subsequent to the order dated 22.01.2009, the second respondent sanctioned pension for the petitioner under the State Freedom Fighter's Pension by his proceedings No.14020, dated 03.06.2009 and was granted only
State Freedom Fighter's pension and was not granted under the Central Government Freedom Fighter's Pension. Hence, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition.
minimum period of six months. He would further submit that the State Government forwarded the application of the appellant / petitioner without any recommendation. Though he has submitted Personal Knowledge Certificate from M/s.V.S.Kandaswamy Mudaliar and M.K.Ramaswamy and non availability of Records Certificate from the Sub- Inspector of Police, Jolarpettai, but nowhere the certifiers have specified the period of suffering of the appellant/ petitioner viz., underground and imprisonment suffering. Though the petitioner had stated that he had participated in the 1942 Quit India movement, he had not specified the period. Therefore, he was not considered to be eligible for S.S.S.Pension. Hence, the learned Single Judge, on through consideration of the materials, dismissed the writ petition and hence, prayed for dismissal of this writ appeal.
(a) Imprisonment / detention certificate from the concerned jail authority, District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release
or
(b) In case records of the relevant period are not available, a Non-Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) from the concerned State / Union Territory Administration along with two co-prisoner Certificates (CPC) from freedom fighters who have proven jail sufferings of minimum one year and who were with the applicant in the jail for a minimum period of six months. In case the certifier happens to be a sitting or Ex.M.P./M.L.A only one certificate in place of two is required."
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when the appellant has fulfilled all the requirements, viz., production of co-prisoners certificate, non-availability of records certificate from the Sub Inspector of Police, Jolarpettail, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the material placed before him by way of typed-set and dismissed the Writ Petition. It is seen from the records that the appellant has got certificates from two co-prisoners, viz., (1) V.S.Kandasamy and (2) M.K.Ramasamy. The co-prisioner certificate issued by Mr.V.S.Kandasamy, in in paragraph Nos.3 & 4, it has been stated as follows:-
"3. I suffered imprisonment during the Freedom Struggle and was lodged in Allipuram Central Jail in Bellary District during the period from 21.10.1942 to 28.04.1943.
As per the provision of SSS Scheme, the co-prisoners should have undergone one year imprisonment, but as per the certificate issued by (1) V.S.Kandasamy, it is crystal clear that he himself had undergone only around six months viz., 21.10.1942 to 28.04.1943 and there is no mention about the period in which the appellant / petitioner had undergone imprisonment. When he was examined by the District Collector he made a statement that he was detained in Vellore Jail for thee months during that time the appellant was also remained there. Hence, we are of the considered view that the observation made by the learned Single Judge holding that "though the appellant / petitioner had stated that he had participated in the year 1942 Quid India Movement, he had not specified the period and therefore, he was not considered to be eligible for S.S.S.Pension" is justified.
suffering and thereafter, the appellant / petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.22140 of 2006 and this Court by an order dated 22.01.2009 disposed the writ petition by directing the second respondent and District Collector to consider the case of the appellant / petitioner sympathetically. Thereafter, by proceedings, dated 03.06.2009, the appellant / petitioner was granted pension. As per the provision of SSS Scheme, the appellant / petitioner has to fulfill the necessary criteria. From the records, it is seen that Thiru.V.Kandasamy, who said to have issued a co-prisoner's certificate is not a competent person as per the norms prescribed in the Scheme. So, the contention of the appellant / petitioner that when the appellant/petitioner has been granted State Government Pension, the central Government should automatically grant pension without any further enquiry or proof is not sustainable, since the appellant / petitioner does not fulfill the required conditions.
"11. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in those two judgments. Ultimately, as held by the Supreme Court cited elsewhere, it is only if the petitioner comes within the four corners of the Scheme, the question of grant of pension can be considered. Since the petitioner has not satisfied the authorities in this regard, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the respondents.
The learned Single Judge has given a categorical finding that "if the petitioner comes within the four corners of the Scheme, the question of grant of pension can be considered. Since the petitioner has not satisfied the authorities in this regard, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the respondents." Since the appellant/ petitioner has not fulfilled the criteria as required by the S.S.S. Pension Scheme, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
r n s
To
SKV(CO) CA(17/11/2017)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition for not granting Swatantrata Sainik Samman (S.S.S.) Pension because the petitioner failed to specify the exact period of
Whether the petitioner satisfied the mandatory eligibility criteria under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's order dismissing the petition for lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claim.
E.V.Narayanasamy
Government of India
State of Tamil Nadu
K.K.SASIDHARAN
P.VELMURUGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
