The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the grant of pension by the Central Government under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, because he had produced at least two certificates from co-prisoners who satisfied the requirement of law and the respondents had not given any specific reason as to why these certificates should not be accepted.

1. The petitioner claims to be a freedom fig titer. According to him” he was arrested and imprisoned for various periods from 3.11.1939 to 10.3.1940 and again he was involved in the quit India Movement and was arrested and imprisoned from June, 1942 to December, 1942. On 29.5.1972 the Government of Tamil Nadu granted freedom fighters pension to the petitioner under the Rules in force in the State of Tamil Nadu. On 15.8.1972 the petitioner was awarded Silver Medal on the occassion of the celebration of the Silver Jubilee of the Countrys Independence. In the year 1973, the petitioner was awarded a ‘Pattayam’ which the petitioner claims to be Thamara Pattra. In 27.5.1979, the petitioner applied for the grant of the Central Governments pension for freedom fighters. On 4.1.1980, the Government of Tamil Nadu forwarded the application. On 14 9.1983 the petitioner applied to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuthithurai for getting a certificate of imprisonment. But he got a reply saying that the records had been destroyed. The petitioner thereupon submitted the following documents in support of claim for payment of pension;

“I. Certificate issued by Tamil Nadu Congress Committee on 13-11-1943;

2. State Freedom Fighters Pension sanction order dated 29-5-1972.

3. Certificate issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu during Indian Independence silver Jubilee

1972 dated 15 8-1972.

4. Certificate issued by V.K. Krishnan Sastri co-prisoner dated 3-9-1977.

5. Certificate issued by V. Ambrose, Central Freedom Fighter pensioner and co-prisoner dated 27-6-1980.

6. Certificate issued by K. Rajiah, Central Freedom Fighter pensioner and co-prisoner dated 27-6-1980.

7. Certificate from N. Gopalakrishna Pillai, Central Freedom Fighter Pensioner and co-prisoner dated 5-2-1985.

8. A photostat copy of ‘Tamara Patra’ awarded by the State Government,”

However, the Government by dated 6-11-1989, has rejected the claim on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any acceptable documentary evidence in support of his claim and that the State Government had not recommended his case for the grant of pension. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition for a direction to the first respondent to pay freedom fighters pension 27.5.1979 with 18% interest,

2. The Government of Tamil Nadu (second respondent) has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that even as early as on 17.9.1974 the Central Government had once rejected the petitioners request. The Collector of the District had sent a report on 26-6-1979 wherein it is pointed out that the petitioner was detained in police lock up in three spells. In the year 1939 he was detained for six months. In the year 1937-38 he had been detained for five months and again in the year 1939-40 he had been detained for six months and five days. On 21-11-1979 the State Advisory Committee recommended the case of the petitioner on the basis of the co-prisoners certificate from one Thiru P.K. Krishnasastry who is admittedly an Ex. M.L.A.

Therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu recommended the claim of the petitioner on 4.1.1980. However, the Government of India rejected the claim on 23.7.1980 on the ground that the co-prisoners certificate of P.K. Krishnasastry was not acceptable as authentic. It has also pointed out that Vettivurkavu Conference has not been recognised by the Government of India for sanction of pension. However, the following statement in the counter affidavit is significant.

“The Collector has, however, stated that from local enquiries it is clear that Thiru D. Gabriel Nadar is a Freedom Fighter. In cases where there were no records to prove the imprisonment of either the certifiers or the certified the then Chairman, State Advisory Committee has opined that it may not be in a position to recommend in such cases.”

Therefore, on 25.7.1986, the Government of Tamil Nadu reversed its stand and did not recommend the case of the petitioner. Consequently the impugned order dated 6-11-1989 was