Madras High Court
A.Pichai vs The District Collector on 3 June, 2015
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.06.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD).No.7758 of 2015 A.Pichai ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Madurai. 2.The Tashildar, Madurai North Taluk, District Collector's Complex, Madurai. 3.The Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters' Pension Division, New Delhi. 4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Political Pension) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.Geroge, Chennai-9. ... Respondents This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No. 33569/2014/Y4 dated 10.10.2014 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to grant Freedom Fighters' Pension to the petitioner from the date of his claim dated 25.01.2010. !For petitioner : Mr.C.Christopher ^For respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Govt.Advocate :ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No. 33569/2014/Y4 dated 10.10.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to grant Freedom Fighters' Pension to the petitioner from the date of his claim dated 25.01.2010.
2. According to the petitioner, he is aged 85 years and participated in the 'Quit India Movement' against the British Rule and he was arrested and imprisoned in Palayamcottai Prison for over six months along with the late.Freedom Fighter. Late.I.Mayandi Bharathi and Mr.A.M.Lakshmanan. It is also his claim that in this regard, the Former President of India Thiru.Venkatraman, who was also in prison along with the Freedom Fighter Late.I.Mayandi Bharathi, wrote a letter to him in proof of imprisonment of the petitioner at Palayamcottai Jail in 1942. The petitioner made an application claiming pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme along with the certificates from co-prisoners, namely, the said Late.I.Mayandi Bharathi and Mr.A.M.Lakshmanan and also a letter written by former President of India Thiru.Venkatraman, in proof of his imprisonment. However, the respondents insisted to produce a copy of FIR and a Certificate from jail authorities, which could not be produced by the petitioner. The petitioner further averred in his affidavit that when a similar demand was made by the respondents to produce FIR or Imprisonment Certificate for another Freedom Fighter, this Court intervened it and issued orders to the authorities concerned to sanction the Freedom Fighters' Pension on the basis of the Certificates issued by the eminent Freedom Fighters and National Leaders. Since his request was also not considered, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.2458 of 2012 before this Court, wherein, a direction was issued to the fourth respondent therein to consider the claim of the petitioner, who in turn, rejected the claim of the petitioner, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the reasons on which the claim of the petitioner is rejected, is untenable in the eye of law. The respondents cannot simply assume the age of the petitioner and come to the conclusion that he might be about three years old at the time of Quit India Movement. When the Central Government authorises and Late.I.Mayandi Bharathi gave Certificates, there is no question of assuming the age of the petitioner. During independence struggle, in those days, the Leaders of our Country only bothered to attain Independence and they never bothered to preserve any documents expecting any credit nor benefit from the Government. Now, the petitioner is at the evenings of his life and he is made run from pillar to post to get the pension from the respondents for one reason or the other. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to grant freedom fighters pension with the available documents.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that since the relevant documents as required by the respondents have not been submitted, the claim of the petitioner could not be considered. Further, in the ration card, the age of the petitioner, it is stated as 65 and therefore, an assumption was drawn that the petitioner could not have been participated in the Quit India Movement. For all these reasons, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5. Notice was ordered on 30.04.2015. No counter affidavit has been filed.
6. A perusal of the impugned order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner throws light on two aspects. The first reason assigned by the respondents is that the petitioner could not have participated in the Quit India Movement on account of his age. Secondly, during the Quit India Movement, a Freedom Fighter should have completed 18 years so as to participate. The assumption drawn by the respondents is unfounded for the reason that the respondents rely on the age mentioned in the ration card. It is common in Tamil Nadu that age is referred by any one of the family members, at the time of applying ration card, for which, no age proof is sought for by the Government. Therefore, the respondents cannot come to the conclusion by wholly relying upon the ration card, that too, when the other two Freedom Fighters, namely, Late.I.Mayandi Bharathi and A.M.Lakshmanan, have given letters to the effect that the petitioner was the co-prisoner. In this regard, I would like to record the fact that during the life time of Late.I.Mayandi Bharathi, he never approached the Government for getting any benefit. Such is his personality and patriotism. Therefore, the first reason stated by the respondents fell through. Once the first reason goes on age aspect, the second reason that the petitioner should have attained the age of 18 years also has no legs to stand.
6.1. Even otherwise, it is pertinent to point out that the logic of the respondents if applied that for getting pension, a Freedom Fighter should have completed the age of 18 years, this Country would not have witnessed the great Leader, namely, Ms.Thilayadi Valliyamai, a well-known follower of the Father of our Nation, namely, Mahathma Gandhi, lost her life for this great Country at the age of 16 years old. There are innumerable leaders like that of Ms.Thilayadi Valliyamai to get freedom for our Country. Apart from that, the respondents have lost sight of the fact that the former President of India Thiru.Venkatraman has written a letter in proof of imprisonment of the petitioner. When the first citizen of our country had recognized the service of the petitioner, what more the respondents require to know the credibility and integrity of the petitioner. The respondents cannot treat the request of the petitioner in a casual manner. Even in the coming days, Late.I.Mayandi Bharathi cannot give a co-prison certificate, as he is no more. In such type of matters, the respondents should be more liberal than pedantic. It is apt to mention a few lines of the poem of Mahakavi Bhartiar:-
Rje;jpug; gaph;
?jz;zPh;tpl; nlhtsh;j;njhk;? rh;ntrh! ,g;gapiuf; fz;zPuhw; fhj;njhk;;': fUfj; jpUt[snkh?
Vz;zbkyhk; bea;ahf vk;KaphpDs;tsh;e;j tz;z tpsf;fp`J koaj; jpUt[snkh?.........?
6.2. Through this poem, let us always cherish our memory that the freedom of expression, which we feel today, the freedom of thought, which we think today, the freedom of Constitutional Right, which we enjoy today, the freedom of impugned order, which the authorities pass today and the freedom of privilege of hearing this case today, are all nothing but the great sacrifice made by Our Forefathers of Our Country. In those days, the Freedom Fighters chased the Britishers to liberate this Country from the British.
Now, they are forced to chase the Government to get Freedom Fighters Pension through litigations. As a matter of fact, the Government itself has to open a separate cell for the Freedom Fighters and get resolved their grievances then and there so as to pass on the freedom movement for ever to the younger generation of Our Country.
7. In the light of the reasons stated above, I have no hesitation to set aside the order impugned in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside. Consequently, the first respondent is directed to grant Freedom Fighters' Pension to the petitioner from the date of his claim dated 25.01.2010, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
To
1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Madurai.
2.The Tashildar, Madurai North Taluk, District Collector's Complex, Madurai.
3.The Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters' Pension Division, New Delhi.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Political Pension) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.Geroge, Chennai-9.