IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.11.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.Nos.1533 and 6484 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 --- A.Rapheal ..Petitioner in W.P.No.1533 of 2008 N.Ponnumuthu Nadar ..Petitioner in W.P.No.6484 of 2008 -Vs- 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Tamil Development and Culture Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of Tamil Development and Culture Kuralagam, Chennai-108. 3.The District Collector Kanyakumar District at Nagercoil. .Respondents in both the WPs. Prayer in W.P.1533/2008:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to effect the payment of monthly pension to the petitioner with effect from 08.10.1984 instead of 21.04.2006. Prayer in W.P.6484/2008:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to effect the payment of monthly pension to the petitioner with effect from 10.03.1994 instead of 21.04.2006. For petitioners : Mr.K.Ravichandrabaabu For respondents : Mr.R.Murali, Govt.Advocate O R D E R In these two writ petitions, the issue involved relates to the payment of pension to the petitioners, who were involved in the Tamil Nadu Merger Movement launched by the Trivancore Congress and the petitioners were arrested and imprisoned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.1533/2008 that he was arrested on 11.08.1954 at Pudukadai and imprisoned for 5 days in Kuzhithurai and 93 days in Thucklay Lock up. He has also participated in the Quit India Movement and imprisoned for more than 6 months for which the Central and State Government sanctioned Freedom Fighter Pension. 3. In respect of the petitioner in W.P.6484 of 2008 is concerned, he was involved in the Tamil Area Merger Movement launched by the Trivancore Congress and participated in the said struggle and was arrested on 11.08.1954 at Pudukadai and was imprisoned in Kuzhithurai Lock-up for 45 days. 4. Both the writ petitioners are entitled for payment of pension as per Tamil Scholar and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1983. In these two cases, at the outset, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were involved in the above said movement and are entitled for pension. The issue that arises in these two writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners are entitled for pension from the date of their original application or from the subsequent date. 5. The petitioner in W.P.No.1533 of 2008 claims that the monthly pension has to be paid from 08.10.1984, the date of his original application and the petitioner in W.P.6484 of 2008 claims that he has to be paid monthly pension from 10.03.1994, the date of his original application. However, they were paid pension from 21.04.2006. 6. It is stated that in respect of petitioner in W.P.1533 of 2008, he has originally applied for pension on 08.10.1984, while the petitioner in W.P.6484 of 2008 has originally applied for pension on 10.03.1994 and there was no order passed which resulted in the petitioner in W.P.1533/2008 filing writ petition in W.P.No.13146/1993 and direction was issued on 19.07.1993 to respondents to consider and pass orders. After the said direction, the first respondent has rejected the claim on 25.10.1993. It was challenged in W.P.No.21449 of 1993, which came to be allowed on 05.11.1997, directing the respondents to make payment of pension within 90 days. Pursuant to the direction, the first respondent passed an order on 30.03.1998, again rejecting the claim of the petitioner. That was challenged in W.P.No.9788 of 2000. The writ petition came to be allowed on 28.02.2002 directing the respondents to grant pension from the date of the application. It was against the said order, the Government filed W.A.No.594 of 2003 and in that writ appeal, while the Division Bench disposing of the same by judgment dated 15.09.2003 directed the respondents to pay either the monthly pension at the rate of Rs.150/- per month or Lumpsum of Rs.10,000/- with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition challenging the Virus of Act 23 of 1983. 7. As per the direction of the Division Bench, the petitioner in W.P.1533 of 2008 along with many others challenging the virus of the Act in not granting monthly pension, filed W.P.No.580 of 2005 and this court by order dated 21.04.2006 in the connected batch of writ petitions stated that the lumpsum payment is not valid in law and the petitioners are entitled for monthly pension. That was the common order passed on 21.04.2006. It was thereafter, the petitioner was granted monthly pension from 21.04.2006. The petitioner claiming that the pension has to be paid from the date of his original application i.e., 08.10.1984, the W.P.No.1533 of 2008 has been filed. 8. Likewise, in W.P.No.6484 of 2008, the writ petitioner had given his original application for pension on 10.03.1994. On 01.06.2000, the petitioner's request was rejected for want of Jail Certificate which had resulted in filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.3394 of 2001 challenging the said order of rejection. The said writ petition was allowed on 31.01.2002. It is thereafter, the petitioner was paid a lumpsum payment of Rs.10,000/- on 13.07.2002. That was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.513 of 2003. Along with the entire batch, the above said writ petition was ordered on 21.04.2006. This court has set aside the direction of the Government to pay lumpsum and directed that the petitioners are entitled for monthly pension. It was thereafter, the petitioner was paid monthly pension from 21.04.2006. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims that he is entitled for monthly pension from 10.03.1994, the date of his original application. 9. It is relevant to point out that the petitioners are aged 83 and 87 years respectively. It is pointed out by Mr.R.Murali, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents that even though the eligibility of the petitioners in respect of pension for having participated in the Tamil Scholar Movement is not questioned, however, the question that arises is from which date, they are entitled for pension. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that in these two cases, even in the earlier writ petition, which was disposed of on 21.04.2006, they have stated that they are entitled for pension from 01.01.2000. In W.P.No.511 of 2006 etc batch shows that in that batch, the petitioner in W.P.1533 of 2008 viz., A.Rapheal has filed W.P.580 of 2005 while the petitioner in W.P.6484 of 2008 viz., N.Ponnumuthu Nadar has filed W.P.No.513 of 2003. In the common order, it is made clear that in these two cases, the petitioners have claimed pension only from 01.01.2000. 11. On a reference to the affidavit filed by the petitioners in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the two cases viz., in W.P.No.511 of 2006 and in W.P.No.1533 of 2008, it is not in dispute that they have restricted their claim for the monthly pension to 01.01.2000. The above said writ petitions along with the batch has been allowed holding that the petitioners are entitled for monthly pension. However, the Government granted pension from the date of the order. The petitioners in the entire batch of writ petitions have restricted their claim from 01.01.2000. 12. It is true that in the hierarchy of judgments, this court either the single judge or Division Bench has taken a categoric stand that the petitioners either Freedom Fighters or Tamil Scholars are entitled for monthly pension from the date of their original applications as it is seen in the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.3264 of 2002 by a judgment dated 05.02.2007. The said judgment has been followed in a number of cases by Division Bench and Single Judges of this Court. 13. However, I am of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners for the payment of monthly pension from the date of their original application viz., 08.10.1984 and 10.03.1994 respectively cannot be sustained. In such view of the matter, the writ petitions are partly allowed with a direction to the first respondent to pay monthly pension to both the petitioners from 01.01.2000, since the petitioners themselves have restricted their claim in their earlier writ petitions which came to be allowed on 21.04.2006 and are not entitled for monthly pension from the date of their original applications. It is also ordered that the respondents shall pay arrears of pension during the period from 01.01.2000 till 21.04.2006 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this orders. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nvsri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Tamil Development and Culture Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of Tamil Development and Culture Kuralagam, Chennai-108. 3.The District Collector Kanyakumar District at Nagercoil +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 60622 +2ccs MR.K.Ravichandrabaabu,Advocate Sr 60243 BV(CO) km/20.11. W.P.Nos.1533 and 6484 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/