IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.07.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.6125 OF 2009 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2009 K.T.Govindasamy ... Petitioner versus 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Tamil Development and Culture Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director of Tamil Development and Culture Kuralagam, Chennai – 600 108. 3.The District Collector Thiruvallur District at Thiruvallur. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Proceedings No.O.M.2603/09/X1 dated 30.01.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay monthly pension to the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Pension to Tamil Scholars and Miscellaneous Act, 1983 from the date of his application viz., 30.10.1996. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ravichandrabaabu For Respondents : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioner was inspired by the Tamil Area Merger Movement launched by the Tamil Leader Shri M.P.Sivagnanam and other leaders for the merger of Tamil areas in the northern belt of Tamil Nadu like Thiruthani, Pallipattu and accordingly, he participated in the agitations from 1953 to 1964. For participating in the agitations, he was imprisoned in Central Prison, Madras from 29.09.1956 to 05.10.1956. 2.The Government of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Payment of Pensions to Tamil Scholars and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1983 (shortly "the Act") providing pension to those, who have exhibited courage or nobility in their zeal to preserve the growth of Tamil language or Tamil culture or exhibited conspicuous talents in Tamil language and to provide for sanction of pension or grant to the families of persons, who have evinced remarkable enthusiasm for Tamil language or Tamil culture, and while striving to uphold their enthusiasm for Tamil language or for the preservation of Tamil culture, lost their lives. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are extracted hereunder: "3.Sanction of pension, grant or scholarship – (1) The Government may sanction a pension of [two hundred and fifty rupees] per mensem, or a grant not exceeding ten thousand rupees or both- (a) to every person who has exhibited conspicuous courage and nobility in his enthusiasm for the Tamil language or in his zeal to preserve the growth of Tamil language or to preserve the Tamil culture; (b) to the dependant of every martyr: Provided that where there are more than one dependant of a martyr, the pension or grant shall be sanctioned only to one of such dependants and for purpose of such sanction of pension, preferences shall be given to a dependant in the order specified in clause (a) of section 2 and where there are more than one dependants of the same category specified therein, the pension or grant shall be apportioned among such dependants in such manner as may be prescribed; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2) On the death of a person who has been sanctioned pension under clause (1) of sub-section (1), the Government may sanction a pension of [two hundred and fifty rupees] per mensem to the dependant of such person: Provided that where there are more than one dependant of such person, the pension under this sub-section shall be sanctioned to only one of such depandants and for purpose of such sanction of pension, preference shall be given to a dependant in the order specified in clause (a) of section 2 and where there are more than one dependants of the same category specified therein, the pension or grant shall be apportioned among such dependants in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The Government may sanction scholarships not exceeding five thousand rupees in such number of instalments and in such manner, as may be prescribed, to- (i) students who have exhibited conspicuous talents or marked skill in Tamil language; (ii) teachers who have evinced notable interest to the preservation and growth of Tamil language; (iii) poets and writers of outstanding merit in Tamil language; and (iv) persons engaged in research work in Tamil language or Tamil culture. 4.Application for pension, etc - (1) Any person who is eligible for sanction of pension, grant or scholarship under this Act may make an application to the Government in such form and in such manner, as may be prescribed. (2) The application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a certificate from such officer, in such form, and in such manner, as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of an application under sub- section (1), the Government may cause such enquiries as they may deem necessary, to be made regarding the eligibility or otherwise of the applicant and may sanction the pension, grant or scholarship, as the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case may be, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rule made thereunder. (4) The Government, while sanctioning pension [other than the pension referred to in sub-section (4)], grant or scholarship under this Act, shall take into consideration the following factors, namely:- (i) the remarkable skill or conspicuous talent in the Tamil language exhibited by the applicant or the martyr, as the case may be; (ii) the outstanding merit of the applicant or the martyr, as the case may be, in contributing to the growth of Tamil language and the preservation of Tamil culture; (iii) the courage and nobility exhibited by the applicant in his zeal to preserve the growth of Tamil language or to preserve the Tamil culture; (iv) the remarkable enthusiasm for Tamil language and his lead to preserve Tamil culture, evinced by the martyr. (v) the nature of the suffering either by way of imprisonment or otherwise undergone by the applicant or the martyr, as the case may be; or (vi) such other factors as may be prescribed. (5) The Government, while sanctioning pension under sub-section (2) of section 3, shall take into consideration such factors as may be prescribed." While the Act was enacted, the monthly pension was Rs.250/- as per Section 3 of the Act. It is now stated that the monthly pension is Rs.4000/-. 3.The petitioner made an application dated 30.10.1996 claiming pension under the aforesaid Act, to the respondents enclosing all original certificates including the jail certificate issued by the Jail authorities that he was imprisoned between 29.09.1956 and 05.10.1996 in Central Prison, Madras. He made various representations requesting the respondents to grant him pension under the Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Under such circumstances, the second respondent herein passed an order dated 10.08.2007 directing the third respondent to enquire into the claim made by the petitioner and to submit a report. Accordingly, the third respondent directed the Revenue Officials to enquire into the matter and to send a report. Pursuant to the direction of the third respondent, the Village Administrative Officer of Krishna Samudram Village and the Revenue Inspector of Serukkanur Sub Taluk visited the village where the petitioner resided during the agitation and submitted separate reports dated 22.12.2008. In the said reports, they stated that the petitioner participated in the Tamil Area Merger Movement led by the Tamil Leader Shri M.P.Sivagnanam and he got imprisoned between 29.09.1956 and 05.10.1956. 5.However, the third respondent passed an order dated 30.01.2009 stating that he could not recommend for grant of pension under the Act as the petitioner failed to submit original documents relating to his imprisonment. 6.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the third respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay monthly pension to him under the Act from the date of his application dated 30.10.1996. 7.Notion of motion was ordered on 13.04.2009. 8.Heard Mr.K.Ravichandrabaabu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner produced the original jail certificate along with his application dated 30.10.1996 itself. But, on the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submits that the original certificates were not produced and the pension is denied only on the ground that the petitioner is not able to produce original jail certificate about his imprisonment. 10.In these circumstances, this Court passed an order on 23.06.2010 directing the respondents to verify the genuineness of the xerox copy of the jail certificate enclosed by the petitioner in the typed set of papers. Based on such direction, an attempt was made to verify the genuineness of the jail certificate. However, it is stated in the letter dated 29.06.2010 of the Tahsildar, Thiruthani that the Jail authority vide his letter dated 28.06.2010 stated that the jail records were destroyed long back. 11.In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed additional affidavit enclosing the certificates of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the co-prisoners and those co-prisoners are in receipt of monthly pension under the Act. The Government Order granting pension to them is enclosed along with the additional affidavit. 12.In such circumstances, it has to be decided as to whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of pension under the Act based on the reports dated 22.12.2008 of the Village Administrative Officer of Krishna Samudram Village and the Revenue Inspector of Serukkanur Sub Taluk stating that the petitioner was imprisoned during the relevant period and also based on the co-prisoners certificates. 13.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent was not correct in refusing to recommend for grant of pension under the Act on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce original documents relating to his imprisonment. According to him, original jail certificate was furnished to the respondents along with his application dated 30.10.1996. In any event, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 4(3) of the Act makes it clear that on receipt of application seeking pension, the Government may cause enquiries regarding eligibility or otherwise of the applicant for pension. In this case, the third respondent directed the Revenue Officials to conduct an enquiry. The Revenue officials gave separate reports dated 22.12.2008 stating that the petitioner participated in the Merger Movement under the leadership of Shri M.P.Sivagnanam and got imprisoned between 29.09.1956 to 05.10.1956. In view of those reports, the third respondent ought to have recommended for pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to my notice that grant of pension under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act should be considered liberally and the reports of the Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspectors are the other factors contemplated under Section 4 (vi) of the Act that the statute contemplates only suffering by way of imprisonment and not the production of original certificates. If the authority found that the imprisonment was true, the respondents cannot deny pension on the ground that the original certificates were not produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in various judgments including in the Division Bench judgment in THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU VS. M.NALLATHAMBI in W.A.NO.1280 OF 2008 (decided on 27.04.2009) held that a co-prisoner's certificate is sufficient to establish the imprisonment and in this case, the petitioner produced certificates from two co-prisoners who were sanctioned monthly pension. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to monthly pension under the Act. 14.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate seeks to sustain the impugned order stating that the petitioner has to be blamed for not producing the original jail certificate. Had the petitioner produced the original jail certificate, the respondents could have sanctioned pension. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 4(3) of the Act contemplates that on receipt of application seeking pension, the Government would cause an enquiry to find out the eligibility or otherwise of the applicant, for payment of pension under the Act. In this case, the second respondent vide his letter dated 10.08.2007 directed the third respondent to enquire into the claim of the petitioner. Based on such direction, the third respondent directed the Revenue Officials to enquire into the matter and submit a report. Thereafter, the Village Administrative Officer of Krishna Samudram Village and the Revenue Inspector of Serukkanur Sub Taluk submitted separate reports dated 22.12.2008 after enquiring into the matter that the petitioner was imprisoned while participating in the Merger Movement on 29.09.1956 and that he was imprisoned up to 05.10.1956. Since those reports are pursuant to the enquiry contemplated under Section 4(3) of the Act, the third respondent should have recommended for payment of pension. However, the third respondent took a technical view of the matter stating that the original certificates were not produced. 16.Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Act nowhere contemplates that the applicant should produce original certificate. On the other hand, Section 4(vi) of the Act states that the Government shall take into consideration such facts as may be prescribed for granting pension. Section 4(v) of the Act states that suffering by way of imprisonment is one of the grounds to grant pension. Therefore, the Government has to ascertain whether the claim of the petitioner that he was imprisoned is true or not. When the Revenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer submitted reports stating that the imprisonment was true, the third respondent should have recommended for payment of pension. 17.Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court in THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU VS. M.NALLATHAMBI in W.A.NO.1280 OF 2008 (decided on 27.04.2009) held that co-prisoner certificate is certainly a document which could be relied upon for the purpose of granting pension under the Act. In this regard, para 8 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder. "8.In fact, as correctly pointed out by the learned Judge (P.Sathasivam, J., as he then was) in K.P.Natarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003 WLR 835), co-prisoner certificate is certainly a document which can be relied upon for the purpose of granting freedom fighters pension. The relevant portion of the judgment is, "7.The other essential condition is that the petitioner has to produce co-prisoner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ certificates as notified by the Government. It is the claim of the petitioner that he had produced a certificate from the Freedom Fighter V.N.Arunachalam, who is getting pension as per order PPO 2147/S, who was lodged in Coimbatore Central Prison and Alipuram Jail in Bellary District during the period 14.09.1942 to 11.09.1944. The petitioner also produced another certificate from the Freedom Fighter one Nachipallan, who was lodged in Central Prison, Coimbatore during the period 29.09.1942 to 11.09.1944, who is also getting pension from the State Government vide order No.2706/S. Unfortunately, these certificates issued by the Freedom Fighters, who were also lodged in the prison during the relevant period, who participated in the freedom struggle along with the petitioner, were not accepted by the Government, as these freedom fighters are not recognised or given in the list of 15 freedom fighters identified by the Government. Inasmuch as the two certifiers, viz., V.N.Arunachalam and Nachipallan – freedom fighters were lodged in Central Prison, Coimbatore during the relevant time along with the petitioner, I am of the view that the Government is not justified in rejecting those certificates and insisting that persons named in the list of 15 alone to be given such certificate. The petitioner has also produced copy of those certificates vide page 2 and 3 of the typed set of papers. 8.It is also useful to refer one important fact that when the petitioner made an application for grant of State Freedom Fighter Pension through the District Collector-second respondent herein, the matter was enquired by the District Committee and based on the enquiry, the District Collector forward his report dated 17.02.1999 to the Government, recommending the case of the petitioner for grant of State Freedom Fighters Pension. The said report finds place at Page 4 and 5 of the typed set of papers. The report shows that the petitioner had obtained co-prisoner certificate from one K.P.Thiruvengadam, Nachipallan and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ V.N.Arunachalam, who were imprisoned in the same District. The report further states that the petitioner was a co-prisoner along with Nachipallan and V.N.Arunachalam, the said Nachipallan was getting State Freedom Fighters Pension and V.N.Arunachalam was getting pension from the Central Government. All those details are available in the report of the District Collector dated 17.02.1999. 9. In the light of the abundant materials, it is surprising that the first respondent has informed that the petitioner had not furnished details regarding his confinement and the co-prisoner certificates produced by the petitioner are not acceptable. The Government has also erroneously rejected the report of the District Collector, which is based on the enquiry made by the District Committee. The impugned order of the first respondent cannot be sustained in view of the decisions rendered in W.P.No.19152 of 1996 dated 21.01.2000 (PSJ), W.P.Nos.15465, 15596 of 2001 dated 12.03.2002 (VKJ), which was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.2142 and 2143 of 2003 dated 01.07.2003." In such view of the matter, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the petitioner has not produced any acceptable document." 18.In view of the reports dated 22.12.2008 of the Village Administrative Officer of Krishna Samudram Village and the Revenue Inspector of Serukkanur Sub Taluk and also the co-prisoners certificate dated 09.07.2010 that the petitioner was also imprisoned along with them between 29.09.1956 to 05.10.1956, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to grant monthly pension to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 19.This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar TK To 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Tamil Development and Culture Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director of Tamil Development and Culture Kuralagam, Chennai – 600 108. 3.The District Collector Thiruvallur District at Thiruvallur. + 1 cc to Mr. K. Ravichandra Babu, Advocate SR.54237 + 1 cc to the Government Pleader High Court Madras Sr.54638 W.P.NO.6125 OF 2009 BVN(CO) EU 30.07.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/