Freedom fighters pension is not considered income, allowing dependents to receive family pension without disqualification based on income limits.

JUDGMENT :

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.800 of 2020 dated 14.07.2022.

Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.800 of 2020 dated 14.07.2022.

These two appeals by the respondent Nos.3 and 1 & 2 respectively in W.P(MD)No.800 of 2020. The said writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent therein vide proceedings No.PEN13/II/PT.16330/G.O.325/2017-18/1037-128115 dated 27.02.2018 and the consequential impugned order of the 3rd respondent therein in his proceedings L.Dis.No.352/2018/M1 dated 03.04.2018 and quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondents therein to grant family pension to the petitioner arising out of the State Government Civil Service of the petitioner's deceased mother, in addition to freedom fighters pension being received by the petitioner within a time frame.

2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner is an unmarried woman. She is the daughter of the freedom fighter Late S.T.Sivasamy who was granted freedom fighters’ pension. The mother of the petitioner was working as an Assistant in the Municipal Primary School at Pudukottai. After her death on 15.08.1979, her father was receiving family pension in addition to freedom fighters’ pension and he passed away on 04.04.2001. After the death of her father, the petitioner was granted family pension as a daughter of a freedom fighter. The Government issued G.O(Ms)No.327, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 30.08.2001 and G.O(Ms)No.325, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 28.11.2001, directing payment of family pension to unmarried daughters who are aged above 25 years if their monthly income does not exceed Rs.2,550/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.7,850/-. The petitioner applied under the said Government Orders for family pension as a daughter of her mother and the same was granted to her vide proceedings dated 04.12.2017. The said grant was cancelled by the 2nd respondent on 27.12.2018 on the ground that she is not eligible to family pension in her capacity as the daughter of the Government servant since she is drawing more than Rs.7,850/- per month by way of family pension as a daughter of her father who was a freedom fighter. This cancellation was subject matter of challenge before the Writ Court. The Writ Court found that freedom fighters pension is an honour and the income therefrom cannot be taken as income so as to debar the recipient from receiving any other pension from the State or Central Government. The Writ Court also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari and others vs. Union of India and others reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 and State of Orissa vs. Choudhuri Nayak reported in 2010 8 SCC 796, wherein, it was held that freedom fighters pension cannot be treated as income since it's object is to honour the freedom fighters and, wherever it was necessary, also to mitigate the sufferings. Reference was also made to a decision of this Court in K.Arumugam vs. The Secretary to Government [W.P.No.37896 of 2005, decided on 27.03.2006], wherein, it was held that freedom fighters pension cannot be treated as income for the purpose of rejecting employment on compassionate grounds. On the said conclusion, the Writ Court struck down the order of cancellation and directed the family pension to be continued. Aggrieved, these appeals have been filed by the respondents 3 and 1 & 2 respectively in the writ petition.

3. We have heard Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant in W.A(MD)No.250 of 2023, Mr.P.Gunasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A(MD)No.65 of 2023, Mr.H.Mohammed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates, learned counsel appearing f