1. During the year 1972, on the 25th Anniversary of Independence, the Government of India introduced a scheme, namely, 'Freedom Fighter's Pension Scheme, 1972' for grant of Freedom Fighter's Pension to freedom fighters and their families, if they were no more alive. The Scheme for pension was introduced and pension was granted on production of evidence from official records of the relevant time during which the applicant had claimed. The condition was later relaxed by directing the freedom fighters to produce secondary evidence in the form of Co-Prisoners Certificate.
2. With effect from 1.8.1980, Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (in short SSS Pension Scheme) came into existence, thereby the Freedom Fighter's Pension Scheme, 1972 ceased to exist. As per clause 2.2 of the Scheme, 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 the freedom struggle, subject to production of imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned Jail Authority, District Magistrate or State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release.
3. The petitioner, claiming to be a freedom fighter and suffered imprisonment on account of his participation in the Indian National Army Freedom Movement for a period of eight months from May to December, 1945, had applied to the Government of Tamil Nadu for grant of Freedom Fighter's Pension. On satisfaction of the records produced by the petitioner, as to his participation in the freedom struggle as well as the imprisonment undergone by him for a period of eight months from May to December, 1945, the Government of Tamil Nadu ordered sanction of pension on 26.3.1970. There is no dispute that the petitioner is continuously availing the Freedom Fighter's Pension from the Government of Tamil Nadu.
4. On the introduction of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme by the Central Government during the year 1972, the petitioner applied to the Government of India vide his application dated 20.12.1972 for grant of pension under the said scheme. The said application was initially rejected on 19.6.1990 on the ground that the petitioner was considered to be a 'Balak' in the Bal Sena as the same was not covered under the scheme. Subsequent to the same, the petitioner had produced the records to show that he cannot be considered to be a 'Balak' in the Bal Sena and he was a major and he was entitled for grant of pension under the scheme. As the same was not considered the petitioner had made a reminder on 20.12.2001. In spite of the same, request of the petitioner was not considered. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider grant of pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.
5. The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter's Division, New Delhi has filed a counter affidavit. It is the case of the respondent that the request of the petitioner for grant of pension under the scheme was rejected as early as in 1980 and the petitioner has slept over for more than ten years and made an application only in the year 2001 and hence the provisions of Limitation Act are prima facie attracted. Apart from the above, it is further stated that the Central and State Governments have separate scheme with different criteria laid down for eligibility for award of Freedom Fighter's Pension in their respective scheme and the award of pension by the State Government under their scheme does not ipso facto entitle an applicant for award of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension by the Central Government. On the above ground, the respondent sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Though the District Collector, Chennai has been impleaded as second respondent, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of him.
7. Mr. K. Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no dispute as to the fact that the petitioner is receiving Freedom Fighter's Pension from the State Government, which was granted after verifying the certificates evidencing participation of the petitioner in the freedom struggle as well as his imprisonment for eight months during the year 1945. He would also submit that under the scheme evolved by the Central Government, the petitioner is also entitled to pension. As the scheme was evolved in the year 1972, the petitioner made an application as early as on 20.12.1972. The said application was rejected on frivolous ground that the petitioner was 'Balak' in the Bala Sena and was not entitled to claim pension, which fact was factually incorrect, when once the entitlement including the participation in the freedom struggle, imprisonment as well as the age of the petitioner, was accepted by the State Government and had already granted Freedom Fighter's Pension. When once the State Government has acceded to the request of the petitioner for Freedom Fighter's Pension on satisfying itself as to the genuineness in the claim, the Central Government cannot reject the application on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility norms. In support of the said submission, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1994 Writ Law Reporter 137 (R. Thangavelu v. Government of India and Anr.). He would also rely upon the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 36113 of 2003 dated 29-12-2003 (S.M.S. Lakshmi v. Government of India and Anr.). Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the application of the petitioner is kept pending for verification of the records through the State Government. This would be evident from the communication of the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 15.1.2002. Such a further verification is not contemplated in view of the Division Bench Judgment. Hence the application of the petitioner should be considered and the petitioner should be sanctioned the pension under the Central Scheme.
8. Though a counter affidavit and a typed set of papers have been filed on behalf of the Union of India, none appears for the first respondent. Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, Special Government Pleader appearing for the District Collector, Chennai, would submit that the petitioner is admittedly availing Freedom Fighter's Pension from the State Government and is therefore disentitled from claiming further pension from the Central Government and is not entitled for such claim under this Scheme.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the above rival submissions. It is the admitted fact that the petitioner is an awardee of State Freedom Fighter's Pension and is availing the same from the year 1970. The State pension has been awarded only on verification of the records produced by the petitioner as to his participation in the freedom struggle as well as his imprisonment for a period of eight months during the year 1945. As far as the entitlement of the petitioner for pension under the Central scheme, I have gone through the entire scheme, which has been annexed in the typed set of papers. As per clause 2.2 of the scheme, a Freedom Fighter, who has suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months on account of participation in the freedom struggle is entitled to pension under the scheme. However, such person should produce the imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned Jail Authority, District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release for entitlement to the Freedom Fighter's Pension from the State Government. Similar condition was stipulated viz., production of certificate from the concerned Jail Authority, etc., evidencing period of sentence awarded while granting State pension. As the petitioner's certificates have already been considered by the State Government and was awarded Freedom Fighter's Pension, the question of further verification for entitlement to Pension under the Central Scheme does not arise as has been held by the Division Bench in the judgment reported in 1994 WLR 137 (cited supra). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as under,
"... We have already held that the Government also should take into account the book published by them under the title 'who is who' containing the names of freedom fighters and act upon the same. Equally, when once the Central Government grants pension after satisfying themselves about the fulfilment of the conditions stipulated in the Scheme, it will not be fair for the State Government to reject the claim for State Pension. Similarly, if the State Government grants pension to a freedom fighter, the same should be accepted by the Central Government and no further proof should be insisted upon."
10. Though it was argued by Mr. S. Gomathinayagam, learned Special Government Pleader that the above judgment of the Division Bench is not applicable to the present case as it was the case of rejection of grant of pension by both the State Government and Central Government, I am not inclined to accept the same as the principle laid down in that case is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Inasmuch as the Division Bench has categorically held in so far as the satisfaction as to the entitlement with reference to the proof if a person has already satisfied either the State Government or Central Government and is availing Freedom Fighter's Pension, there cannot be a further verification of the records either by the State Government or by the Central Government, as the case may be. This Judgment has been followed by P. Sathasivam, J., in W.P. No. 36113 of 2003 dated 29.12.2003. In fact, the facts in the said case are similar to the facts of the present case, where the petitioner in that case was an awardee of Freedom Fighter's Pension by the State Government and his request was rejected by the Central Government for want of proof as to the records. The said contention was repelled by the learned Judge on the ground that when once the State Government has satisfied itself as to the genuineness on the basis of records, no further verification of records is required.
11. In the present case as well, as already pointed out, the petitioner was awarded pension by order dated 26.3.1970 and has been receiving pension from the State Government from then onwards. From the communication of the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 15.1.2002, it is seen that the application of the petitioner was kept pending only for verification on the following points,
"1. What is the date of birth of the applicant according to the revenue records/voter list/ration card/educational certificate, etc.
2. Whether the Co-prisoner Certificate has in fact been obtained by the applicant from the aforesaid certifier, who is claiming to be a Central Prisoner.
3. Whether the applicant is getting State Pension, if not reasons thereof.
4. Whether the applicant is a citizen of India."
The report on the verification are sought to be made from the State Government. Only for want of reports, the application of the petitioner was not considered and is kept pending. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Division Bench cited supra, the verification as required by the first respondent from the State Government is not necessary and on that ground, the application cannot be kept pending. The application of the petitioner should be processed and orders shall be passed duly taking into consideration of the Freedom Fighter's Pension granted by the State Government to the petitioner right from the year 1970.
12. Further it must be mentioned that the claim of the petitioner that he has participated in the freedom struggle and had undergone imprisonment for a period of eight months has not been disputed by the first respondent and had only wanted the State Government to submit a report. It is also brought to my notice that the petitioner is one among the awardee out of four freedom fighters, who were awarded "Tamara Patra". Such being the case, entitlement of the petitioner for pension under the Central Scheme cannot be belittled by mere technical formalities. It must be borne in mind that the petitioner had applied for Freedom Fighter's Pension under the Central Scheme in the year 1972 immediately when the scheme was brought into force and is still struggling for grant of pension.
13. In these circumstances, I find every justification in the grievance of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Central Scheme. Consequently, the writ petition is to be allowed.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the first respondent herein is directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 20.12.1972 without insisting for further verification of records and duly taking into consideration the findings of law rendered in this Judgment and pass orders thereon within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order or production of the same by the petitioner along with copy of application dated 20.12.1972 and subsequent reminder dated 20.12.2001. No costs.
