JUDGMENT :

G.R. Swaminathan, J.

1. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 14.02.2017, allowing W.P. (MD) No. 18758 of 2013 filed by one V. Nagamalai. During the pendency of the writ petition, he passed away and his legal heirs had come on record.

2. The case of the original writ petitioner was that he was a member of Indian National Army and freedom fighter. He claimed that he was arrested by the British police and detained in Rangoon Central prison from May 1945 till the end of December 1945. He applied to the Central Government seeking grant of financial assistance under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. Even though, his application was submitted as early as in the year 1986, it was not considered and simply kept pending. In the meanwhile, he had been granted State Pension vide proceedings dated 04.09.2004, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The stand of the original writ petitioner was that when once the State Government had recognized him as a Freedom Fighter and granted him pension, the Central Government was also obliged to grant him pension under Swatantrata Sainik Sam-man Pension Scheme, without insisting on any further proof.

3. The case of the writ petitioner was recommended by the District Collector, Trichy vide letter dated 09.04.2008, addressed to the Secretary, Public Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. The Government of Tamil Nadu vide communication dated 19.12.2018 forwarded the case of Thiru. Nagamalai, for appropriate decision to the Government. Thereafter, the Government of India vide letter dated 04.03.2009, informed the Government of Tamil Nadu that it is not possible to accept his claim for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension from Central Revenue. This communication dated 04.03.2009 was put to challenge in W.P. (MD) No. 18758 of 2013. The learned Single Judge, allowed the said writ petition by the impugned order dated 14.02.2017. This is questioned in this intra court appeal.

4. Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and we carefully considered their rival contentions.

5. The claimant sought pension in terms of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The scheme states that not all persons who participated in the freedom movement in some way or other are eligible for Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. Only the categories set out in the scheme are eligible for availing the pension. That would also be subject to furnishing of the satisfied evidence. The relevant clause reads as under:

"2.2. Imprisonment:- A person who had suffered minimum imprisonment of six months (3 months in case of women, SC/ST freedom fighters) on account of participation in freedom struggle subject to furnishing of the following evidences:-

(a) Imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned jail authority, District Magistrate or the State Govt. indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release.

(b) In case records of the relevant period are not available, the secondary evidences in the form of 2 co-prisoner certificates (CPC) from freedom fighters who have proven jail suffering of minimum 1 year and who were with the applicant in the jail could be considered provided the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned, after due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certifies that documentary evidences from the official records in support of the claimed sufferings were not available. In case the certifier happens to be a sitting or Ex. M.P./M.L.A., only one certificate in place of the two is required."

6. What is to be seen is whether in this case, the original claimant submitted the requisite evidence. Admittedly, he did not furnish any imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned jail authority. The claimant placed reliance on the co-prisoner certificates issued by Thiruvalargal. P.T. M