T R V PANDURANGAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein has a sad saga to tell. He took part in the freedom struggle in the year 1940. He claims that he was jailed and was placed in Bellary jail. On that count, he also started getting the pension as decided by the state of Tamil Nadu, treating him as a Swantantrata Sainik. THEre is a parallel scheme by the central Government also. He, therefore, applied to that Government for being recognised as a freedom fighter and for the consequent pension. THE Central government, however did not grant him the pension on the ground that the proof given by him for the suffering was not sufficient. THE proof then supplied before the Central Government was the certificate of co-prisoners namely m. Rajagopalan and M. S. Ayyamperumal. THE Central Government took the view that such co-prisoners'certificate could not be said to be a valid document to grant the pension.

(2.) THE petitioner, therefore, came before this Court and filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 17902 of 1991. THE said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 20. 12. 1993. THE observations of the learned Judges are rather telling. THEy are reproduced here under. "heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. THE ratio of our decision in W. P. No. 7194/91 R. Thangavelu v. Government of India by Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (Freedom Fighters Division), Lok Nayak bhavan and another. dated 16. 12. 1993 squarely applies to the present case also. " THE learned Judges, as their Lordships then were, consequently set aside the order and issued a direction in Para 4 of the judgment, which is as under: "as and when the claim is sustained by the authorities pursuant to our orders and the reconsideration directed, the petitioners shall be entitled to the pension under the Central Scheme with effect from 10. 3. 1982. No costs. "

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central government, however, tried to support the order saying that after the earlier writ petition was allowed by this Court, they did not receive anything from the petitioner though he claims that he had sent the certificates to them. I was taken through the counter affidavit which specifically suggests in Para 7 thereof that in a query made by the Central Government itself, it was clarified that the records in Bellary Jail were not traceable. This query was made at the instance of the Central Government by the State Government, which later on informed regarding the answer given by the Jail authorities concerning the non availability of the records. From this, the learned counsel suggested that if clear proof is provided by the petitioner and the claim is found to be genuine, the Central Government is even now prepared to grant the pension.