State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs A. Manicham Pillai

State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. ........ Appellants

Versus

A.Manickam Pillai .......Respondent

JUDGMENT

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. This appeal is an example and a reflection of the way we

treat our freedom fighters inasmuch that while we applaud

their contributions to the fight for freedom, deny them a

pension, which, even if granted, amounts to a pittance and

while many who apply are under financial distress, all without

exception, wear it as a badge of honour and as a certificate of

recognition of their efforts in the struggle for independence.

2. The respondent, A. Manickam Pillai claiming to be a

freedom fighter, applied for the grant of a freedom fighter's 2

pension on 30th December 1996. This representation was

rejected by the Collector on 21st August 1997. Undeterred,

the respondent again filed an application on the 8th May 1998

and after a recommendation by two Collectors and the District

Level Screening Committee, it was forwarded to the State

Government. This was, however, rejected by the State

Government on the ground that in the face of Government

Order No.30 dated 7th February 1996 such an application had

to be supported by a certificate of a co-prisoner who was a

Government approved certifier and the certificate appended

had been issued by one Mayandi Bharathi, who was not a

Government approved certifier. The respondent thereupon

filed a writ petition in the High Court, appending therewith

another certificate issued by one Karuppan Chettiar certifying

as accurate (on the basis of his personal knowledge) the

contents of the certificate issued by Mayandi Bharathi. Before

the Single Bench, the appellant-State took the stand that as

per the Government instructions dated 7th February 1996, it

was mandatory for an applicant seeking a freedom fighter's

pension to produce co-prisoner certificates from two of the 3

persons mentioned in the Memorandum dated 16th November

1988 indicating specifically that the applicant as well as the

certifiers had undergone imprisonment in the same jail and in

the absence of such evidence, the applicant was not entitled to

a pension. It was pointed out that neither Mayandi Bharathi

nor Karuppan Chettiar satisfied this rigid test. The learned

Single Judge, however, rejected this plea by observing that as

the respondent's case for pension had been recommended by

two Collectors and the District Level Screening Committee, the

mere fact that a co-prisoner's certificate had not been

appended would make no difference and having held as above,

allowed the writ petition. This judgment was affirmed in

appeal by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 26th June

2006 which has now been impugned before us.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellants that in the light of the fact that the respondent had

not provided the documents/evidence that was envisaged in

the order dated 7th February 1996, the mere fact that some

certificates had been appended or a recommendation had been 4

made by the Collectors or the District Level Screening

Committee would not entitle the respondent to a pension. It

has been submitted that the Government Order had to be read

in toto and the right created in the respondent by the said

order was circumscribed by the conditions laid down for its

applicability.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however,

submitted that the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the

High Court had clearly observed that the fact that the

respondent was indeed a freedom fighter, had not been

disputed by the appellant-State or its agents and even

assuming that the Government Order dated 7th February 1996

was applicable, in the facts as given above, this Court should

not interfere in the matter under Article 136 of the

Constitution.

5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the parties. It will be seen that the

respondent, had, in the writ petition, appended two

certificates, one given by Mayandi Bharathi, who was a co- 5

prisoner with the respondent and was also recipient of a

freedom fighter's pension sanctioned by the Government of

Tamil Nadu and other benefits as well in accordance with that

status, and this certificate gave full details with regard to the

incarceration of the respondent and his contribution to the

freedom movement. This certificate had earlier been rejected

by the State Government on the plea that the Mayandi

Bharathi was not an approved certifier, as required by the

Government instructions dated 7th February 1996. The

second certificate appended in the High Court by the

respondent was the one issued by Karuppan Chettiar dated

30th December 1998 who was an approved certifier and who

certified that he knew the respondent and further that the

contents of the certificate issued by Mayandi Bharathi were

correct, and he accordingly recommended the respondent's

claim. We see that the stand of the appellant-State based on

the communication dated 7th February 1996 is, in fact,

misplaced. This communication refers to the difficulty being

faced by applicants for freedom fighters' pension in producing

co-prisoner certificates from two of the persons mentioned in 6

the Government Order of 16th November 1988. Realizing this

difficulty, the State Government by its order dated 7th

February 1996 issued a modified and simplified procedure for

the grant of certificates with effect from that date. A perusal

of this G.O. would reveal that freedom fighter certificates could

now be issued by approved certifiers and these were held as

sufficient evidence for the grant of a pension. The G.O.

further set out the constitution of District Level Screening

Committees to be nominated by the Government in

consultation with the Collectors concerned and that these

committees were required to personally examine the

documents produced and decide as to the entitlement of the

applicant to the grant of pension and refer the matter for

formal approval to the State Government.

6. We find two certificates on record - one of Mayandi

Bharathi and the other of Karuppan Chettiar, an approved

certifier. We also see that the matter had been recommended

by two Collectors and the District Level Screening Committee.

This was sufficient compliance with the Government Order of 7

7th February 1996. Significantly, the State Government has

not disputed the respondent's claim on facts. We are, thus,

disinclined to interfere in the matter under our jurisdiction

under Article 136 of the Constitution. Dismissed. No costs.

................................J. ( HARJIT SINGH BEDI )

...........................

.....J. ( T.S. THAKUR ) NEW DELHI, January 27th, 2010