Madras High Court
M.A. Kandasamy Pillai vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu, Rep By Its ... on 9 July, 2002
Author: V. Kanagaraj
Bench: V. Kanagaraj
ORDER
V. Kanagaraj, J.
1. Writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent passed in No.MM69121/2000/P2 dated 28-01-2002 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to sanction the Freedom Fighters Pension to the petitioner from the date of original application filed by him on 24-08-2000 with all attendant benefits such as Bus Travel Concession, Medical Health Benefits etc.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writ petitioner would submit that he participated in various Freedom Struggle Agitations and he was imprisoned for a period of 3 months during the Quit India Movement; that the Tamilnadu Government sanctioned State Freedom Fighter Pension; that the petitioner applied for the said Pension by filing the application there for on 24-08-2000, along with the relevant certificates to prove his conviction during the Quit India Movement; that healso sent number of representations to the respondents; that so far as the enquiry relating to the grant of freedom fighters pension is concerned, every District is having a District Screening Committee consisting of the District Collector as Chairman of the Committee and the District Revenue Officer and five other Members who are freedom fighters and accordingly, the screening committee of Dharmapuri was originally having five members; that in the case of the petitioner there were three members who are freedom fighters, besides the District Collector and DRO in the District Screening Committee; that the District Screening Committee took up the matter relating to his application for grant of freedom fighters pension on 28-09-2001; that inspite of the certificate issued by the freedom fighter S.K. Kaliappan, who has been approved and recognised freedom fighter entitled to give co-prisoners certificate as per the relevant government orders of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the screening committee passed the impugned order communicated in MM69121/2000/P2 dated 28-01-2002 thereby rejecting his application on the ground that there was no proof of age furnished by him; that the order of the respondents rejecting his application for grant of freedom fighters pension is not maintainable, on such grounds the petitioner would seek the relief extracted supra.
3. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would stick to the facts pleaded.
4. On the part of the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents, he would adhere to the impugned order and would strongly oppose the contentions of the petitioner and would say that the Screening Committee passed the impugned order dated 28-01-2002, rejecting the application of the petitioner for want of proof of age, required by the committee.
5. A careful perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the Screening Committee formed for recommending the cases of the Freedom Fighters Pension would reject the petitioner's plea for the said pension, since he was not able to produce the certificate in proof of his age; that however the copy of the school certificate was produced, but the entries were not clear and that there is no proof except the certificate given by the co-prisoner, based on this recommendation, the Government have rejected the application of the petitioner.
6. It may be relevant to point out that the case of the petitioner is dating back 54 years and the school certificate furnished by the petitioner contains the date of birth as 19-06-1923.
7. While such being the condition, relying on the following judgments reported in (1) GURDIAL SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2)I.V.K.MALAICHAMY (deceased)AND ANOTHER vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & OTHERS (2001 Writ Law Reporter 549), this court has to arrive at decision so far as the issue concerned with the grant of Freedom Fighters Pension in favour of the petitioner is concerned, the relevant portion from the judgment cited first supra is as follows:
"The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As the object of the scheme to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by the scheme had suffered for the country about half-a-century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the scheme. The case of the claimants under this scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touchstone of the test of "beyond reasonable doubt". Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence."
The relevant portion from the judgment cited second supra is as follows:-
"Taking note of the spirit and substance of the certificate issued by the co-prisoner Sri P. Kakkan particularly when there is no averment in the counter affidavit filed; by respondents 1 and 2 disbelieving the certificate as a whole, I am obliged to quash both the proceedings, namely, No.13/O/Mu/37917/89 dated 23.7.1990 by the third respondent and No.129/97/84/FF(S.2) dated 25.2.1984 by the first respondent with a direction to give the benefits of the scheme to the petitioner, who are legal heirs of V.K. Malaichamy (deceased) freedom fighter, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
Falling in line with the observations made by the Apex Court in the judgments cited above, this court has to allow the above writ petition to its prayer and; hence the following order:-
8. In result,
(i) the order passed by the second respondent dated 28.01.2002 is hereby quashed;
(ii) the second respondent is directed to sanction Freedom Fighters Pension in favour of the petitioner from the date of his application on 24.08.2000, within four weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is made ready;
(iii) however, in the circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs.