The necessity of meeting both the evidentiary and eligibility criteria for the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme was stressed, along with the independence of the Central Government's decision despite state recommendations.

JUDGMENT

S. MANIKUMAR, CJ

Instant writ appeals are filed by the Union of India, represented by Deputy Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter's Division, New Delhi, respondent in the writ petitions, challenging the judgments passed in W.P.(C) No.19452/2013 dated 9.7.2018 and W.P. (C) No.10064/2013 dated 1.7.2018 respectively.

2. By the impugned judgments, learned single Judge directed the appellant to grant Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (freedom fighter's pension), to the respective writ petitioners along with arrears thereon, within a time frame.

3. Relevant portions of the judgment impugned in W.A. No.675/2019 are extracted hereunder:

“13. These claimants have been pursuing the matter for quite a long time and claimants have participated in the Punnapra Vayalar movement that took place in October, 1946. Long years have elapsed after the said historic event. Therefore, this Court is fully inclined to accept the reasonings rendered by this Court in the judgment dated 30.5.2018 in W.P.(C).No. 14070/2013 and would follow the said directions, which had allowed the claim on merits. It should also be borne in mind that the present generation is able to enjoy the oxygen of freedom and liberty only because of the sufferings of the freedom fighters, who took part in the historical struggle for making India free from colonial rule. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that again making a remit would be unjust and would unnecessarily prolong the matter. Therefore, going by the reasonings and the line of directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C).No. 10470/2013, it is ordered that the respective impugned orders in these three cases issued by the respondent Union Government authorities will stand set aside. It is further ordered and declared that the petitioners/ claimants concerned herein in these 3 cases are entitled for grant of Central SSS Pension in accordance with the Central scheme. The petitioner will be entitled for grant of pension and its arrears from the respective dates of issuance of the present rejection orders passed by the respondent Union Government, which have now been quashed. So the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.19452/2013, W.P. (C).No. 13863/2013 and W.P.(C).No. 2470/ 2014 will be entitled for grant of freedom fighters' pension and its arrears from 25.6.2013, 11.2.2013 and 15.1.2014 respectively. The pension and arrears of pension should be released to the respective petitioners concerned in these three cases within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petitions (Civil) stand finally disposed of.”

4. Relevant portions of the judgment impugned in W.A. No.719/2019 are extracted hereunder:

“6. The learned Assistant Solicitor General has placed reliance on para 53 of Ext.P-10 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and has contended that the respondent- Union Government authorities have the discretion to refuse to grant the pension under Central Scheme even if there is a positive letter of recommendation issued by the State Government, so long as it is satisfied about such aspects based on the requisite enquiry on facts. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the issue as to the reliability of the contents of Ext.P-5 Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri.T.F.Yohannan, is still open for consideration by the respondent Union Government and therefore, the reiteration of the said view in para 6 of Ext.P-13 rejection order cannot be faulted. True that the Central Government has the discretion to refuse the grant of pension under the Central Scheme even if, there is a positive letter of recommendation by the State Government. But in a case like this, where the matter in issue was already judicially overruled by this Court, it cannot be open to the Union Government authorities to again reiterate a ground of rejection, which has already been overruled j