ORDER :

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order of the second respondent/District Collector, Theni District, dated 17.07.2019 and to quash the same and for a direction to the respondents to grant Freedom Fighters Family Pension to the petitioner from the date of death of her husband and to disburse the same.

2.In the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, it had been stated that the husband of the petitioner, by name, Mohammed Sheriff, was incarcerated in Alipuram Camp Jail in Bellary District in Karnataka between 08.10.1943 and 11.04.1944. Claiming that though he had not sought for pension, as his widow, the petitioner was entitled to Freedom Fighters Family Pension, the petitioner had sent several representations to the respondents.

3.The third respondent/Special Deputy Tahsildar, Sa.Pa.Thi, Theni District, had originally passed an order on 07.02.2017 refusing to grant pension to the petitioner primarily on the ground that her husband had not been granted Freedom Fighters Pension and therefore, she was not eligible to grant of such pension. That order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.3407 of 2017, wherein, a learned Single Judge of this Court had relied on Rule 6 of Madras Freedom Fighters' Pension Rules, 1966, and had stated as follows:

“5.A perusal of the Freedom of the Freedom Fighters' Pension Rules 1966 shows that there is no age limit prescribed. But, the request for reconsideration made by the petitioner on 09.01.2017 was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the Freedom Fighters' Pension can be sanctioned to the wife of the freedom fighter only if the freedom fighter himself has been sanctioned pension. This reason, in my view, is not sustainable. Rule 6 of the Madras Freedom Fighters' Pension Rules, 1966, extracted above would show that the wife and minor children of the freedom fighter are entitled to pension.

6.In view of the above, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the application for grant of freedom fighters' family pension to the petitioner subject to other conditions being satisfied. The authorities are directed to complete the process and communicate the result to the petitioner within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

4.It is thus seen that a categorical ruling had been given by a learned Single Judge of this Court that the petitioner is eligible for Freedom Fighters Family Pension, if her husband had satisfied the condition of serving in prison and other related conditions and her application cannot be rejected on the ground that her husband had not granted pension or not applied for grant of pension. The order of the learned Single Judge of this Court had not been taken on appeal and therefore, it is binding on the respondents.

5. Unfortunately, the respondents seem to take pleasure in violating the ruling of law.

6.In (2001) 8 SCC 8 in the case of Gurdial Singh Vs Union of India and others, the Honourable Supreme Court had as follows:

“7......... Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the Scheme. The case of the claimants under this Scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touchstone of the test of “beyond reasonable doubt”. Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence.

8. We have noticed with disgust that the respondent authorities have adopted a hypertechnical approach while dealing with the case of a freedom fighter and ignored the basic principles/objectives of the Scheme intended t