THE GOVT. OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS DIVISION Vs. M. PANCHARATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceedings of the Under Secretary to Government, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi, dated 13.08.2001, was challenged before the learned Single Judge and the said proceedings was set aside and the learned Single Judge directed that the respondent/writ petitioner should make another representation to the appellant for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension and after receipt of the representation, the appellant herein was directed to pass orders within a period of four weeks, with a specific direction not to return the claim for the reasons already set out in the impugned proceedings, dated 30th August, 2001, which was quashed. The present writ appeal is filed challenging the above said order of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) Before we advert to the legal issues, the following factual aspects of the case require to be noted.

(3.) The learned Single Judge was of the view that State Freedom Fighter Pension was granted in favour of the widow of the freedom fighter and the same is supported by two certificates issued by co-prisoners, which is not in dispute. The Certificate issued by Thiru P.Kakkan, former Minister of the Government of Tamilnadu, was known for his simplicity, honesty and integrity and therefore nothing more is required to be stated or considered for grant of pension. The learned Single Judge frowned upon the authorities for being hyper- technical while granting pension. Relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.879 of 2009, dated 25.02.2010 - State of Tamil Nadu vs. A.K.Gopal, and also considering the plight of a widow of freedom fighter, who challenged the order of the appellant, dated 13.08.2001, rejecting her claim for pension, in the year 2009, held that her belated approach could be nothing but, of which we approve, sheer penury. The learned Single Judge came to the aid of the widow of the freedom fighter and directed the appellant to consider her claim on merits, eschewing the reasons stated in the impugned proceedings.