The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for applicants to provide genuine and acceptable evidence and certificates in consonance with the conditions stipulated under the schemes to be eligible for Freedom Fighters Pension.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in No.52/CC/Pon/147/2010-FF/SZ dated 01.07.2011 quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents to grant Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (SSS) and State Freedom Fighters Pension with interest on arrears, award costs.)

1. The order of rejection dated 01.07.2011, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (SSS) is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was aged about 82 years and now he would be around 92 years. The petitioner states that he was a Freedom Fighter and fought for the liberation of Puducherry from the French Regime during the period from 1947 to 1954 as an employee of the “Sudanthiram Printing Press”, which was a revolutionary weekly journal, promoting the cause of freedom.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner submitted an application along with all relevant documents to grant freedom fighters pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (SSS) implemented by the Government of India. The petitioner''s application was rejected and hence the petitioner filed W.P.No.15252 of 2008 seeking direction to the respondents to grant Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (SSS) and State Freedom Fighter Pension to the petitioner. This Court passed final orders on 02.02.2010 directing the authorities to consider the recommendations of the Government of Puducherry and pass appropriate orders. The State Government also sent its remarks to the Central Government. Again the respondents passed the impugned order in proceedings dated 03.05.2010, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner on the following grounds:

1. He has not furnished any acceptable record based primary evidence, duly verified by the State Government, in support of his claimed jail and underground sufferings undergone by him during freedom movement.

2. The petitioner has not furnished substantive evidence linking his imprisonment on murder charges with the merger movement of Puducherry.

3. He has not furnished valid NARC from the State Government.

4. The Certificate issued by Shri D.K.Ramanujam is neither a PKC nor CPC. Hence it is not acceptable.

4. Challenging the said order dated 03.05.2010, the petitioner filed second writ petition in W.P.No.18220 of 2010. The said writ petition was adjudicated elaborately by this Court and a final order was passed on 17.02.2011.

5. Relying on the observations made in the said order by the High Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the reasons stated by the respondent for rejecting the Freedom Fighters Pension to the petitioner was considered by this Court and the writ petition was allowed directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 made a submission that mere imprisonment and non-release of the petitioner on 01.11.1954 cannot be ground to say that the conviction of the petitioner was not related to freedom struggle. Even after the elaborate orders passed by the High Court, the petitioner has now passed another impugned order, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the reasons for rejection in the earlier rejection order and the present impugned orders are one and same. All those reasons were adjudicated by the High Court in W.P.No.18220 of 2010. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be rejected.

8. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Government of Puducherry objected the said contention by stating that the case of the writ petitioner was consider