P. SUBRAMANIAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC (P.P.) DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to sanction Freedom Fighter's pension to the petitioner from the date of his application accepting the proof of his age based on the new Family card, his horoscope and the extract of who is who publication issued by the Government.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner would submit that he had applied for Freedom Fighter's Pension on the ground that he had undergone imprisonment in the Vellore Central Jail for a period of 6 months from 15.7.1940 to 20.12.1940 for participation in the Freedom Struggle during the year 1940 ; that Co -prisoner G.Pakkiri a Freedom Fighter who is receiving State Freedom Fighter's Pension based on the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 2111 Public dated 24.6.1968 has issued a certificate to the effect; that the Screening Committee, Nagapattinam District scrutinised his application together with the co -prisoner's certificate did not recommend his case to the Government for sanction of Freedom Fighter's Pension on the ground that he is already drawing old age pension; that the Committee also obtained a written statement to the effect that he did not want Freedom Fighter's Pension and submitted the papers to Government; that there is no prohibition in the scheme for granting pension to such of the Freedom Fighters who are drawing old age pension; that the old age pension is only Rs.150/ - p.m. The petitioner would further submit that State Freedom Fighter's Pension is being sanctioned to such of the Freedom Fighters who had undergone imprisonment for participation in the Freedom struggle for a minimum period of three weeks; that once the Freedom Fighter's Pension is sanctioned, the grant of old age pension would be stopped; that however, the Government did not accept the recommendation of the Collector and wanted the petitioner to produce certificate relating to his educational qualification, as there was discrepancy in his age in the copies of family cards furnished by him; that the petitioner has studied in an un -recognised school up to II Standard; that he could not therefore produce the certificate relating to his educational qualification; that there is no age rules for grant of pension to Freedom Fighters; that the Government have issued guidelines in letter No.12273/96 -20 Pub.(PP II) Dept., dated 13.1.1997 for the functioning of the District level Screening Committee; that one of the guidelines is that he should have completed 18 years of age at the time of conviction; that with reference took his letter dated 27.10.1998 addressed to the Government, the Government in their letter dated 24.11.1998 have informed him that

(3.) THE petitioner would further submit that however, the Government gave one more chance in their letter dated 10.9.1998 asking him to prove that he was 18 years old at the time of imprisonment by furnishing certificate from the school in which he studied; that in the absence of confirmation that he had completed 18 years of age at the time of imprisonment, his request for the grant of Freedom Fighter's Pension could not be accepted by the Government; that his request for the grant of Freedom Fighter's Pension was not accepted by the Government due to discrepancies in the age; that pension is granted mainly on the jail sufferings undergone by the Freedom Fighters and the other things are only subsidiary; that since he has furnished his horoscope wherein his date of birth has been indicated as 15.6.1916; that in 1940 he was more than 20 years old and satisfy the guidelines prescribed by the Government; that a detailed notice dated 1.3.1999 was also issued to the Government to reconsider his case and to accept the age furnished in the family card; that the Government in their letter dated 20.6.1999 have informed that the Government have examined the notice and have rejected the claim; that the entries in extract of "Who is Who" publication strengthens the case of the petitioner in regard to the age qualification; that the fact remains that he had completed more than 18 years when he took part in the Freedom struggle. ON such overmen's, he has come forward to file the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus as stated therein.