P.Ulagesan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC17 Jul 2025WP/26032/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Freedom fighter family pension; Tamil Nadu; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; G.O.(Ms)No.748 Public (Political Pension – II) Department dated 11.08.1995; recommendation Na.Ka.No.3-13882/2024/A7 dated 18.10.2024; District Collector Salem; Secretary to Government Public (Political Pension – II) Department; sanction within eight weeks; no costs; typographical correction order dated 08.09.2025; P. Ulagesan v. State of Tamil Nadu; W.P.No.26032 of 2025; N. Mala J.; Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: first respondent directed to pass orders sanctioning Freedom Fighter's family pension to the petitioner within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs. Registry directed (08.09.2025) to carry out typographical corrections in paragraphs 4 and 6 and issue fresh order copy.

P.Ulagesan Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent ought to be directed to sanction Freedom Fighter's family pension to the petitioner (with effect from 26.06.2023 as prayed) on the basis of the second respondent's recommendation vide Na.Ka.No.3-13882/2024/A7 dated 18.10.2024 read with G.O.(Ms)No.748 dated 11.08.1995, within a time frame fixed by the Court.

¶¶12

Court's answer

In view of the facts and the second respondent's recommendation to sanction the family pension on the basis of G.O.(Ms)No.748 dated 11.08.1995, the first respondent is directed to pass orders sanctioning family pension to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order (text as corrected by order dated 08.09.2025; the original paragraph 6 had erroneously named the second respondent).

¶¶61

Ratio / Principle

On the mentioning application, other than the specified corrections to paragraphs 4 and 6 of the order dated 17.07.2025, all other observations in that order were directed to remain the same, and the Registry was to issue a fresh corrected copy.

¶¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Mala, J.), W.P.No.26032 of 2025, decided 17.07.2025 (corrections 08.09.2025): Petitioner, whose freedom-fighter father and thereafter mother had drawn freedom fighter's family pension from the Governments of India and Tamil Nadu, sought a mandamus under Article 226 directing the first respondent (Secretary to Government, Public (Political Pension – II) Department) to sanction family pension to him on the basis of the second respondent's (District Collector, Salem) recommendation vide Na.Ka.No.3-13882/2024/A7 dated 18.10.2024, invoking G.O.(Ms)No.748, Public (Political Pension – II) Department dated 11.08.1995. Taking the matter up for final disposal at admission by consent, the Court disposed of the petition directing the first respondent to pass sanctioning orders within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, with no order as to costs. By a 'for being mentioned' order dated 08.09.2025, typographical errors in paragraphs 4 and 6 — interchange of 'first respondent' and 'second respondent' references — were corrected and the Registry was directed to issue a fresh copy, all other observations remaining the same.

¶1

W.P.No.26032 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.07.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

¶5

W.P.No.26032 of 2025

P. Ulagesan

...Petitioner

State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to Government Public ( Political Pension – II) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

The District Collector Collectorate, Fort Main Road, Salem – 636 001

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass necessary orders sanctioning Freedom Fighter's family pension to the petitioner based on the recommendations made by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No.3-13882/2024/A7 dated 18.10.2024 with effect from 26.06.2023 within a time frame as fixed by this Court and pass orders.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G. Harshavarthan For Respondents 1&2 : Mrs.P. Vijayadevi Government Advocate

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.26032 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Mrs.P. Vijayadevi, Government Advocate takes notice for the

¶19

respondents.

¶20

By consent of both counsels, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶21

3.This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass necessary orders sanctioning Freedom Fighter's family pension to the petitioner based on the recommendations of the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No.3-13882/2024/A7 dated 18.10.2024 with effect from 26.06.2023, and within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶22

4.The petitioner's father was a freedom fighter and he was drawing freedom fighter's family pension from the Government of India and Government of Tamil Nadu till his death. After the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's mother was drawing the freedom fighter's family pension till her life time. Whileso, the petitioner submitted a representation for grant of the family pension in his favour

¶23

2/7

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.26032 of 2025

¶26

after the death of his mother, by invoking G.O.(Ms)No.748, Public ( Political Pension – II) Department dated 11.08.1995. The first respondent also recommended the petitioner's case to the second respondent for sanctioning of pension in his favour of the petitioner. Despite the recommendations of the first respondent, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the above said relief.

¶27

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the recommendation of the first respondent to sanction the family pension on the basis of G.O.(Ms)No.748, dated 11.08.1995, I am inclined to direct the second respondent to pass orders sanctioning family pension to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

3/7

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.26032 of 2025

¶32

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there

¶33

shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

17.07.2025

¶35

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order smn

¶36

To. 1. The Secretary to Government Public ( Political Pension – II) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶37

The District Collector Collectorate, Fort Main Road, Salem – 636 001

¶38

4/7

¶39

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

W.P.No.26032 of 2025

N.MALA, J.

Smn

W.P.No.26032 of 2025

¶44

17.07.2025

¶45

W.P.No.26032 of 2025

¶46

N. MALA, J.

¶47

5/7

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.26032 of 2025

¶50

This matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶51

It is brought to the notice of this Court that some typographical

¶52

errors have been crept in the order dated 17.07.2025 at paragraph Nos.4 & 6. Accordingly, the following corrections shall be incorporated in the order,

¶53

“4. The petitioner's father was a freedom fighter

¶54

and he was drawing freedom fighter's family pension from the Government of India and Government of Tamil Nadu till his death. After the demise of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's mother was drawing the freedom fighter's family pension till her life time. While so, the petitioner submitted a representation for grant of the family pension in his favour after the death of his mother, by invoking G.O.(Ms)No.748, Public ( Political Pension – II) Department dated 11.08.1995. The second respondent also recommended the petitioner's case to the first respondent for sanctioning of pension in his favour of the petitioner. Despite the recommendations of the first respondent,

N. MALA, J.

dpq

6/7

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

¶59

W.P.No.26032 of 2025

¶60

no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the above said relief.

¶61

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the recommendation of the second respondent to sanction the family pension on the basis of G.O.(Ms)No.748, dated 11.08.1995, I am inclined to direct the first respondent to pass orders sanctioning family pension to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”.

¶62

Thereby, he would request that the said portion of the order may be corrected and copy may be issued accordingly.

¶63