TMT. AVUDAI AMMAL Vs. THE COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TIRUNELVELI AND STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC (PP) IV DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent relating to their letter 48642/AO4/99 -1 Public (PP) Department, dated 19.11.1999 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and issue a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to grant family pension to the petitioner under State Government Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme from 2.5.1982.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner would submit that her husband Thiru.A.S.Arumugam was a freedom fighter and he had participated in the Freedom Movement; that he had taken part in Individual Satyagraha Movement in the year 1942 and courted imprisonment; that he was kept in Madurai Central Jail for five weeks; that thereafter he died on 7.6.1966 leaving the petitioner as his widow; that during his life time he did not apply for Freedom Fighter's Pension since he was not aware of such a pension scheme; that in the year 1980, the Government of Tamil Nadu extended family pension to the widows of freedom fighters who had undergone imprisonment for a minimum period of one month and above; that on 2.5.1982 the petitioner applied to the Second Respondent for grant of family pension; that it was also brought to the notice of the respondent that in the book "Who is who" of Freedom Fighters Volume published by the Government of Tamil Nadu her husband's name has been entered regarding his activities in the Freedom Movement; that the first respondent on 7.3.l984 had written to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Madurai and requested him to furnish the records relating to her husband's imprisonment; that the Superintendent, Central Jail, on 6.6.1984 informed the first respondent that the Registers relating to the years 1941 and 1942, due to efflux of time and destruction by white -ants, have been destroyed and lost and they are not available; that therefore, certificate as requested by him could not be issued; that thereafter the second respondent on 28.11.1984 informed her that her request for grant of State Freedom Fighters Pension could not be complied with since the imprisonment suffered by her husband late Thiru A.S.Arumugam had not been established beyond doubt; that thereafter, with great difficulty, she collected certain records to show that her husband had participated in the Freedom Movement and was in imprisonment for five weeks.

(3.) The petitioner would further submit that with all the certificates, she made another representation to the 2nd respondent on 30.12.1993; that the second respondent, on 16.8.1994 rejected the same stating that the records are not available in the Government Archives to show that her husband was imprisoned; that again on 20.6.1998 petitioner made another representation to the second respondent; that the second respondent, on 27.l8.1998, forwarded the same to the first respondent for detailed examination and to send a report on her representation; that thereafter the first respondent sent a memo to her directing her to furnish certain particulars; that the first respondent passed an order on 9.4.1999, rejecting her claim; that on 12.5.1999, the second respondent also rejected her request for grant of family pension; that in the meanwhile, the Government had passed several orders constituting a committee to go into the claims made by the widows of freedom fighters for grant of family pension; that such committees were formed by the respective districts; that after formation of such committee, again she made a representation on 7.7.1999, and appeared before the committed and submitted several documents; that thereafter the first respondent, in his proceedings dated 14.9.1999, after detailed enquiry, recommended to the 2nd respondent to grant State Government Freedom Fighters Family Pension to her; that the second respondent in their proceedings dated 19.11.1999, rejected her claim. On such averments the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus as extracted supra.