M RAJAGOPAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the orders dated 21.09.1979, 11.03.1983 and 13.06.2000 and direct the respondents to sanction the Swathanthratha Sainik Samman INA Pension to the petitioner with effect from 24.10.1972 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, within a time frame.

(2.) THE petitioner, aged about 93 years is a freedom fighter, who fought for the freedom of our Nation by joining the Indian National Army(INA) headed by Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose. THE petitioner was born in August 1919. THE petitioner was attached to the rear head quarters after the training in the Indian Independence League at Rangoon, Burma and served as Sepoy and designated as Auto Mechanic to repair the Army vehicles and deputed to work in the provisional Government of India at Singapore. THE petitioner was arrested by the British in August, 1945 and kept in selattor camp prison for six months and released in 1946. THE petitioner claims that V.Krishnasamy and K.Muthusamy who were co-prisoners along with him, have given affidavit to the effect that the petitioner was in bidadary detention camp from 15th August 1945 to 28th February 1946. THE petitioner applied for State freedom fighters pension based on the INA certificate issued. THE District Collector, Thanjavur District after holding enquiry found that the petitioner is a genuine freedom fighter and submitted his recommendation to the State Government on 06.12.1969. Based on the said recommendation, the Government of Tamil Nadu sanctioned the Freedom Fighters Pension to the petitioner in F.F.P.O.No.4798/69 dated 31.12.1969 with effect from 12.10.1968 THE petitioner is getting the State Government Pension from 12.10.1968 onwards. During the Silver Jubilee celebration of Indian independence in the year 1973, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued "Thamarapattayam" in recognition of his service rendered to the Nation as a Freedom fighter.

(3.) THE matter was adjourned from time to time i.e. 04.09.2012, 12.09.2012, 24.09.2012, 26.09.2012 and 27.09.2012 and even today, learned counsel for the respondents is seeking only further time and she is not in a position to justify the order passed, based on the records available.