P BALAKRISHNAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, DIRECTOR OF TAMIL DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has challenged the order of rejection passed by the second Respondent by which the Petitioner's claim for monthly pension as per Tamil Nadu Payment of Pension to Tamil Scholars and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1984 was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner did not produce imprisonment certificate.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that he participated in the movement relating to the merger of Tamil areas of the former Trivancore State with Tamil Naduon 11.8.1954. The Petitioner contends that he was arrested at Kuzhithurai and kept in Thuckalay jail for 184 days. Therefore, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Payment of Pension to Tamil Scholars and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1984, the Petitioner applied for monthly pension on 29.6.2001 to the second Respondent. The second Respondent forwarded the application to the third Respondent to conduct an enquiry about the Petitioner's contribution in the said movement. The third Respondent conducted an enquiry and the Petitioner furnished all the documents to prove his participation in the said movement.

(3.) It is stated that the third Respondent after thorough enquiry sent a report dated 15.2.2005 to the second Respondent. As no action was taken, the Petitioner sent a representation to the Chief Minister and the same was forwarded to the second Respondent on 10.10.2008. After that the second Respondent informed the Petitioner by a letter dated 24.2.2009 stating that he addressed to the third Respondent to get a report. As no further reply was received from the second Respondent, the Petitioner applied under Rights to information Act to the second Respondent on 6.1.2009 requesting the details about the action taken on the basis of the report of the third Respondent. The second Respondent by reply dated 4.2.2009 informed the Petitioner that the report of the third Respondent had been placed before the High Level Committee on 7.5.2007, which rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that he did not produce the imprisonment certificate to the third Respondent. The letter dated 4.2.2009 issued by the second Respondent herein is impugned before this Court.