The Government should adopt a pragmatic approach in the matter of grant of pension to genuine freedom fighters and should not insist on the production of documentary evidence like imprisonment/detention certificates from the concerned Jail authorities/District Magistrates/ or the State Governments.

AR. Lakshmanan, J.

The writ petitioner herein and others who claim to be the freedom fighters, were refused the grant of pension under the Swadantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India. Hence, they approached this Court for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Government of India and for mandamus to pay the pension from a particular date. Some writ petitions were filed for the relief of mandamus directing the Government to consider their names and consequently to pay the pension from a particular date.

2. Some impugned orders were passed on merits. Some without assigning any reason. A few orders were issued on the printed/cyclostyled form by filling up the necessary particulars in the blanks left out for that purpose. Some orders were passed on the ground that the imprisonment undergone has not been established. Quite few orders have been passed rejecting the applications on the question of belatedness. Some claims were re-jected on the question that the same can be considered only if official documentary evidence such as jail certificate, warrant of arrest, etc., are produced. It is seen from some orders that the certificate does not indicate the period of conviction and the actual date of release. A few cases were rejected on the ground that the co-prisoner’s certificate was not filed or even the filed certificates are not genuine. Some cases have been rejected by the Government of India on the ground that the Government of Tamil Nadu has not recommended the case of the persons concerned for payment of pension. Some cases were rejected on the ground that the detention period was less than six months.

3. Since all the writ petitions raise a common question, all the writ petitions have been heard together to settle the general principles of law in controversy like this.

.4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the rejection of pension on various grounds mentioned above is not correct and that the impugned orders were passed without giving opportunity to the petitioners before rejection of their claim. Hence, the principle of natural justice has been violated. It is also stated that the scheme itself says that the certificate from co-prisoner is sufficient and hence the rejection on the ground that sufficient documentary evidence such as jail records were not produced in respect of the date of imprisonment, date of release, etc., is against the very scheme itself. According to them, the State Government’s recommendation is not necessary, which is also not contemplated and the rejection of pensionary benefits on that ground by the Central Government is totally irregular. It is their contention that the rejection on the question of delay is also not warranted in view of some of the pronouncements. They have also brought to our notice one or two instances where the certificate issued by a national leader was not accepted and acted upon the claim was rejected. In another instance, the claim of a notable personality, a senior lawyer and a former Member of Parliament for pension was rejected without considering his status and the genuineness of his claim.

5. Mr.R.Santhanam, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, has placed the relevant filed before us for our perusal. He would submit that the main criteria of six months imprisonment for grant of pension under the scheme is still retained and that many claims were rejected since the certificates produced by the persons concerned were not genuine. In all the rejected cases, the parties have furnished bogus certificates.

.6. The principles governing the Central Scheme of Pension can be summarised as follows: A Central Scheme for the grant of pension to freedom fighters and their families from Central Revenues was introduced by the Government of India during the Silver Jubilee year of Independence. The scheme commenced from 18. 1972 and provided for the grant of