Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYARAMA CHOUTA
Marakkal - Appellant
Versus
Government of India, Rep. By Its Secretary and Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 11295 of 1986
Decided On : 28 March 1996
SWATANTRATA SAINIK SAMMAN PENSION SCHEME - FREEDOM FIGHTERS' PENSION SCHEME - ACT-SECTION REFERRED : Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (Centre) and Freedom Fighters' Pension (State) Pension Scheme - SUMMARY : The petitioner, wife of a deceased freedom fighter, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant her pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (Centre) and the Freedom Fighters' Pension (State) Pension Scheme. The petitioner's husband had participated in the individual Sathyagraha in 1941 and the Quit India Movement in 1942, and was imprisoned for more than 11 months. The first respondent rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner's husband's case did not come under the purview of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, and the second respondent rejected the claim on the ground that the petitioner's husband had not proved his imprisonment by acceptable documentary evidence. The court held that the first respondent was not justified in refusing the petitioner's prayer, as the petitioner's husband had produced sufficient materials to show that he had undergone imprisonment as a Freedom Fighter for more than six months. The court also held that the second respondent had complied with the petitioner's request by granting her pension. The court allowed the petition, quashed the order of the first respondent, and directed the first respondent to grant pension to the petitioner under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (Centre).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's husband, a freedom fighter, participated in the individual Sathyagraha in 1941 and the Quit India Movement in 1942, and was imprisoned for more than 11 months. He applied for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (Centre) and the Freedom Fighters' Pension (State) Pension Scheme, but his application was rejected by both respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the first respondent was not justified in refusing the petitioner's prayer, as the petitioner's husband had produced sufficient materials to show that he had undergone imprisonment as a Freedom Fighter for more than six months. The court also held that the second respondent had complied with the petitioner's request by granting her pension.
Issues: Whether the first respondent was justified in refusing the petitioner's prayer for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (Centre).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first respondent was not justified in refusing the petitioner's prayer, as the petitioner's husband had produced sufficient materials to show that he had undergone imprisonment as a Freedom Fighter for more than six months.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the order of the first respondent, and directed the first respondent to grant pension to the petitioner under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (Centre).
Petitioner Marakkal, the wife of late S. Rengasamy, filed this writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order in the nature of writ by calling for the records from respondents 1 and 2, i.e. the Government of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, and Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Public Department, Madras respectively, in their proceedings No. 129/174/81-FFSZ dated 12-9-1985 and L.W. No. 8879/81-14- Public (pp. IV) Department, D/-23-4-1986 and quash the same and direct the first and second respondents to grant pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (Centre) and Freedom Fighters' Pension (State) Pension Scheme.
2. In support of the said writ petition, the petitioner has sworn to an affidavit in which she has stated that her husband, late S. Rengasamy was a Freedom Fighter and he participated in the individual Sathyagraha in 1941 and also in Quit India Movement in 1942 against the British Government and he was imprisoned and suffered imprisonment in various jails for more than 11 months. Her husband applied for the grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, which is to be granted by the first respondent and also to the second respondent for the grant of pension payable by the State Government. The Schemes stipulate that if a person had undergone imprisonment for more than 6 months, the Central Government will grant pension and if a person had undergone imprisonment, for 21 days, the State Government will grant the pension. Since her husband had undergone imprisonment for more than 11 months, he is entitled to get the petition both from State Government and Central Government.
3. The first respondent in his proceedings No. l29/174/81-FFSZ, D/-12-9-l985 rejected the application on the ground that her husband's case does not come under the purview of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, D/-1-8-1980. As far as the second respondent is concerned, the State Government by its letter No. 8979/84-14 Public (PP-IV) Department, D/-28-4-l936, rejected the claim on the ground that he has not proved by any acceptable documentary evidence. Challenging the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
4. On behalf of the first respondent, one Shri A. Banerjee, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, has sworn to a counter-affidavit. In the said counter-affidavit, he has stated that the petitioner's late husband had applied for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension in 1981, claiming imprisonment suffering from 1/-10-1942 to 7-7-1943, but his case was rejected on the ground that his claimed jail suffering for at least 6 months could not be established either from official records or from collateral evidence. He has also stated that in the pension application, late Rengasamy had not indicated the name of any dependent member of his family. The counter-affidavit futher reads that there was no material to show that the petitioner's late husband had actually undergone imprisonment at least for 6 months or released prematurely on bail on furnishing surety bond or tendering apology. Since ttle petitioner's late husband claimed suffering could not be established either from official records or from collateral evidence that he had actually suffered imprisonment at least for six months, it was not found possible to grant the said benefit to him. On these grounds the first respondent asked this Court to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits.
5. Before considering the rival submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties, it will be better to refer to the order passed by the Central as well as the State Governments. The order passed by tbe Central Government reads as follows:
"No. 129/174/81-FFSZ-Government of India Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Home Affairsj/Grih Mantralaya, New Delhi.
To
Shri S. Rengaswamy, Dasanur P.O.,
via Mettupalayam
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
