Dismissed

R.Krishnan(Deceased) v. Union of India

Madras HC4 Oct 2021WP/11395/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, as the legal heir of a deceased former INA member, challenged the rejection of her husband's claim for the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no meritorious infirmity in the impugned order as the petitioner failed to substantiate the required condition of jail imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

No costs awarded. The writ petition stands dismissed.

R.Krishnan(Deceased) Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.NO.11395 OF 2014

¶6

R.Krishnan (deceased)

¶7

K.Seeniammal W/o.Late R.Krishnan.

... Petitioner

.Vs.

Union of India,

Rep. by its Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mansingh Road, New Delhi. ... Respondent

¶12

(P2 is substituted as legal heir of deceased sole petitioner vide order dated 28.10.2020 made in W.M.P.No.14800 of 2020 in W.P.No.11395 of 2014 by RSKJ)

¶13

PRAYER:Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certioraried mandamus, calling for the records and quash the impugned order dated 06.11.2013 passed in No.52/CC/06/2013-FF(INA) on the file of the Respondent and direct the respondent to sanction Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension and pay the arrears for pension due from 1972 and continue to pay the freedom fighters pension to the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sadasharam

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.P.Ayyasamy Central Govt. Standing Counsel

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The order dated 06.11.2013 passed by the respondent is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶18

The original petitioner, who filed the writ petition seeking Freedom Fighters Pension, died during the pendency of the writ petition and his wife is impleaded as petitioner.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

The petitioner states that he was a member of the Indian National Army and undergone sufferings along with the members of the Indian National Army. The original petitioner, though, has stated that he had undergone imprisonments on arrest, the said statement was not substantiated before the competent authorities.

¶21

The application submitted by the petitioners were examined by the competent authorities and it is found that the original petitioner Shri.Krishnan has not claimed any jail suffering.

¶22

The reasons stated in the order impugned are in consonance with the Freedom Fighters Pension scheme. Once the requirements for grant of pension is not complied with, then the Court cannot dispense with the conditions for the purpose of sanctioning of Freedom Fighters Pension. In the present case, the original petitioner has not even established that he was imprisoned in jail.

¶23

This being the factum, this Court do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order of rejection impugned in this writ petition. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No Costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

ars/mka

¶29

¶30

The Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, Mansingh Road, New Delhi.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.S.Sadasharam, Advocate, S.R.No.51524

¶32

W.P.NO.11395 OF 2014

¶33

PVS(CO) PBS/27/10/2021

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Krishnan(Deceased) v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Krishnan(Deceased) v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Chandra Babu(Deceased), Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Jalal Mohamed Khaleelur Vs the Chief Manager

N.Vimala, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

N.Sridhar Vs M/s. Indian Bank

Indian Silambam Federation, Vs The Secretary

T.Selvam, Vs Tamilnadu Warehousing