M. PANCHARATHINAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of the freedom fighter. The petitioner's husband was arrested and detained during the British Rule. He was said to be under detention from 18.8.1942 to 26.5.1943 and he was arrayed as an accused. Thereafter, he was acquitted. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and satisfied with the materials produced, the petitioner was given State Freedom Fighters' Pension. While so, the petitioner made an application to the respondent seeking payment pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short 'SSS'). The petitioner's request was rejected on the ground that there are discrepancies in the Certificate issued by the State freedom fighters, who underwent trial along with the petitioner's husband. It has been further stated that in the order impugned, the fact that the petitioner's husband was acquitted would not entitle her to get the benefit. Another reason was assigned that merely because the petitioner is getting pension under the State Scheme, she is not entitled to under 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme'. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The petitioner is a poor widow, aged about 72 years. She has been agitating her rights since 1985. The fact that she has been given pension under the State Freedom Fighters pension scheme is not in dispute. The further fact that the two co-prisoners has given a Certificate in her favour is also not in dispute. The order impugned has been passed on a wrong footing on the ground that the Certificate issued by the co-prisoners are different from each other. This is factually incorrect. Each of the co-prisoner has given a Certificate indicating the imprisonment of the petitioner's husband, while that person was in imprisonment. That is the purpose and object of the co-prisoner's Certificate. It is nobody's case that those Certificates are incorrect. In fact, this Court is afraid as to how a Certificate issued by a great personality like Kakkan, the then Minister of the Tamil Nadu, who died in penury leaving nothing behind him can be doubted. The said person is known for his simplicity, honesty and integrity and in the opinion of this Court, nothing more is required than the Certificate issued by him.

(3.) The Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu v. A.K. Gopal, made in W.A. No. 879 of 2009 dated 25.2.2010, after referring to the judgments, this Court was pleased to hold that while granting pension, a hyper-technical approach cannot be adopted. At this length of time, a poor widow of a freedom fighter cannot be demanded to produce another document, which she does not have in her hand. Further, the very fact that the order passed in the year 2001 has been challenged in the year 2009. This shows her plight. In the light of the discussion made above, the order impugned is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to make another representation to the respondent within a period of two weeks enclosing the relevant documents. After receipt of the said representation, the respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks, thereafter. It is made clear that the respondent shall not reject the application of the petitioner, based upon the reason which have been found as not proper and correct by this Court.