IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.23831 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 E.V.Narayanasamy ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of India, rep by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Freedom Fighters Division), New Delhi-110 003. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by the Additional Secretary, Public (P.P.I) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. ...Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the petitioner's freedom fighter's pension 52/CC/TN/89/2006-FF(SZ) dated 07.04.2010 and to quash the impugned order of the first respondent dated 07.04.2010 and to direct the first respondent to consider the representation dated 02.09.2009 in the light of the order passed by the State Government by its proceedings No.14020 dated 03.06.2009 to recognise the petitioner as Central Government Freedom Fighter and grant Freedom Fighter's Pension as provided under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman (S.S.S.) Pension scheme. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondents : Mr.S.Raghupathi, CGSC for R-1 Ms.C.Devi, GA for R-2 O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an Order dated 07.04.2010, and after setting aside the same seeks for a further direction to consider his representation dated 02.09.2009 in the light of the freedom fighter pension granted by the State Government and to grant Freedom Fighter's Pension provided under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman (S.S.S.) Pension scheme. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Notice was directed to be served on the respondents. Accordingly, respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 09.03.2011 justifying the impugned Order. 3. By the impugned Order, the petitioner was informed that merely because the petitioner was granted State pension, that will not ipso facto make him eligible to get pension from the S.S.S.Pension scheme. Therefore, his case was rejected. 4. The petitioner earlier applied for the State Government pension and the same was refused. Thereafter, he filed W.P.No.22140 of 2006 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 22.01.2009, directing the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the State Government sanctioned pension to the petitioner on 03.06.2009 under the Freedom Fighter's category. It is only on the strength of the said Order, the petitioner had moved the Central Government for getting a similar pension. 5. On behalf of the respondents, in the counter affidavit, it was pleaded that for S.S.S.Pension Scheme, one has to satisfy the conditions of the Scheme evolved by the Central Government. It requires an imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned jail authority, the District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence, date of admission etc.,. If only, these materials are not available, a Non-Availability of Records Certificate will be obtained from the concerned authority along with two Co-prisoner certificates who have proven jail sufferings of minimum one year and that he was detained along with co-prisoners in the jail at least for a minimum period of six months. 6. In the case of the petitioner, the State Government forwarded the application of the petitioner without any recommendation. Though he has submitted Personal Knowledge Certificate from M/s.V.S.Kandaswamy Mudaliar and M.K.Ramaswamy and non availability of Records Certificate from the Sub- Inspector of Police, Jolarpettai, but nowhere the certifiers have specified the period of suffering of the petitioner viz., underground and imprisonment suffering. Though the petitioner had stated that he had participated in the 1942 Quit India movement, he had not specified the period. Therefore, he was not considered to be eligible for S.S.S.Pension. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the following passages of the judgment of the supreme Court in Mukand Lal Bhandari and Others v. Union of India reported in AIR 1993 SC 217, which is as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "The petitioners would undoubtedly be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme provided, of course, they produce the relevant material in support of their claim. As regards the sufficiency of the proof, the Scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced before the Government. It is not possible for this Court to scrutinize the documents which according to the petitioners, they had produced in support of their claim and pronounce upon their genuineness. It is the function of the government to do so. We would, therefore, direct accordingly.The pension should, of course, be sanctioned only after the required proof is produced." 8. The learned counsel further referred to Order of the Division Bench in C.Santhanam v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [W.P.No.7707 of 2000] dated 30.11.2000. Reliance was placed to the following passage: "Admittedly, there are two distinct schemes, and one can be eligible to get pension on fulfilling the conditions prescribed in each scheme. Petitioner can be entitled for Central Government pension, only on satisfying the facts, which are required as per the scheme..." Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 8 and contended that the standard of proof required for proving that person is a freedom fighter cannot be the standard adopted in the criminal court. The object of the scheme is to honour and mitigate the sufferings of freedom fighter and a technical approach should not be made. 10. He also referred to the subsequent judgment of this Court in K.Appanraj v. The Secretary to Government of India and others reported in 2004 Writ L.R.606, wherein the said decision of the Supreme Court was followed. 11. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in those two judgments. Ultimately, as held by the Supreme Court cited elsewhere, it is only if the petitioner comes within the four corners of the Scheme, the question of grant of pension can be considered. Since the petitioner has not satisfied the authorities in this regard, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar svki To 1.The Under Secretary, The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Freedom Fighters Division), New Delhi-110 003. 2.The Additional Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Public (P.P.I) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 1 cc To Mr.E.Kanndasan, Advocate, SR.28350 1 cc To Mr.S.Raghupathi, Advocate, SR.28119 ORDER IN W.P.NO.23831 of 2010 KGK (CO) RH (5.5.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/