STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. A MANICKAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(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 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 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 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.