Dismissed

K.Ramasami Chettiar (Deceased) v. the Union of India

Madras HC8 Mar 2023WP/23080/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition by legal heirs seeking sanction of Freedom Fighters' Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The court held the original application was defective, lacking evidence of jail suffering, and allowed the impugned rejection order to stand.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking prerogative writ calling for records and quashing the rejection order is dismissed. No costs.

K.Ramasami Chettiar (Deceased) Vs the Union… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.23080 of 2006

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.03.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

Writ Petition No.23080 of 2006

¶7

1 K.Ramasami Chettiar (Deceased)

¶8

2 Saraswathi Ammal

¶9

3 R.Rajagopal

¶10

4 R.Shanmugam

¶11

5 R.Rani

¶12

6 R.Gunasundari

¶13

...Petitioners

¶14

(P3 to P6 are substitute as LRs of Deceased P2.Saraswathi Ammal as per Order dated.12.04.2018 by MDIJ in WMP.4877/18 in Wp.23080/2006)

¶15

-Vs-

¶16

The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.

¶17

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Deputy Secretary to the Government, Public (Political Pension) Department, Fort St. George Madras-9.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

¶21

W.P.No.23080 of 2006

¶22

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the file of the 1st respondent made in No.129/23/2004-FF/SZ dated 12.04.2005 and quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to grant pension to the petitioner under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Stalin

¶24

For Respondents : (for R1) : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan Dy.Solicitor General of Police (for R2) : Mr.T.Arun Kumar

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the original writ

¶27

petitioner seeking Freedom Fighters’ Pension is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶28

2.The petitioner submitted an application for sanction of the Central Freedom Fighters’ Pension under the scheme. Even at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was aged about 85 years and during the pendency of the writ petition, the original writ petitioner died, his wife also died and the legal heirs are impleaded as petitioners.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

2/4

¶31

W.P.No.23080 of 2006

¶32

3.Perusal of the order impugned reveals that the original writ petitioner has submitted application without enclosing the requisite documents enabling the authorities to consider the case for sanctioning of the Freedom Fighters' Pension. The original petitioner had not furnished any evidence of his own jail suffering for a period of one year or more. It is also not shown before a 1^st Class Magistrate on a Stamp Paper. As per the scheme, the application is to be submitted in compliance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the scheme.

¶33

4.In the present case, the petitioner has not furnished any official primary documentary evidence and thus, the case of the petitioner was rejected. As of now, the petitioner and his wife are no more and the legal heirs at this length of time cannot claim any Freedom Fighters’ Pension.

¶34

5.Based on the defective application submitted by the writ petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed . No costs.

¶35

08.03.2023 Index:Yes (½) Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes sha

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

3/4

¶38

W.P.No.23080 of 2006

¶39

The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.

¶40

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶41

sha

¶42

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Deputy Secretary to the Government, Public (Political Pension) Department, Fort St. George Madras-9.

¶43

Writ Petition No.23080 of 2006

¶44

08.03.2023 (½)

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

4/4

K.Ramasami Chettiar (Deceased) v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramasami Chettiar (Deceased) v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ravi @ Madasamy Vs the Secretary to the

K.Raja, Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.

Foundation for Innovative Vs the Executive Engineer

Jessi Florence Vs Himachal Pradesh Horiticulture

M/S. Rajalakshmi Paper Vs Eh Government of Tamilnadu

K.R.Venkataswamy Vs the Union of India