S M S LAKSHMI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 24. 3. 2004 passed by the second respondent, Deputy Secretary to Government of India (F. F. (INA) Ministry of Home Affairs in his proceedings F. No. 52/cc/9/2004 FF (INA) Ministry of Home Affairs, Government India and to direct the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner under the said scheme with effect from 22. 5. 1982.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the husband of the petitioner viz. , late S. M. Shanmugam was a freedom fighter and had participated in Indian Independence struggle. He was a member of Indian National Army organised by Netaji Subash Chandra Bose and also a member of Indian Independence League. He had also actively participated in the propaganda Department of I. N. A. from 1942 till May 1945. In the course of freedom struggle, he was also arrested and detained by the British Forces in Rangoon Central Jail for more than six months between May 1945 and December 1945. To honour and aid the needy families of the Freedom Fighters, the Government brought a Scheme in 1972, commemorating the Silver Jubilee of Indian Independence known as "swanthantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme". As per the said scheme, the freedom fighters, who suffered six months or more imprisonment in the course of their struggle, are eligible to claim pension. The freedom fighter's families are also eligible for the said scheme. The petitioner had applied for Freedom Fighters pension in May 1982 and she had produced a co-prisoner certificate from one S. Thangasamy, who had claimed to be a Central Freedom Fighter pensioner, and the said application was rejected on the ground of delay. Hence the petitioner filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 2721 of 1991 before this Court and this Court quashed the decision of rejecting the application of the petitioner and remitted the matter back to the respondents for reconsidering the application of the petitioner on merits. But the said application was once again rejected. Again the petitioner filed W. P. No. 36113 of 2003 before this Court and this Court by order dated 29. 12. 2003, directed the second respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1994 Writ Law Reporter 137 (R. Thangavelu-vs-The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and another ). In and by the impugned order the second respondent rejected the claim of petitioner, hence the above writ petition.

(3.) MR. A. P. SURYAPRAKASAM, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband has suffered detention for six months, who died on 16. 3. 1969; that the co-prisoner, who is receiving pension from the respondent was also sent; that the co-prisioner also receiving pension from the State Government, but the respondents without considering the same originally rejected the claim of the petitioner. . It is brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. A. P. Suryaprakasam that in W. P. No. 36113/2003, this Court directed the respondents to take into consideration the freedom fighter pension granted by the State Government and also the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in 1994 Writ Law Reporter 137 (R. Thangavelu-vs-Government of India and another) to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass orders. In the said decision, the Division Bench has held that once either the State Government or the Central Government grants pension to a particular freedom fighter, he must automatically get the other pension either under the State Government or under the Central Government Scheme without any further enquiry, on the claimants satisfying the guideline, and the Government cannot reject the claim summarily that he is not a freedom fighter at all; that the petitioner is receiving the Freedom Fighter scheme from the State Government, while so, it is not open to the respondents to go for further enquiry and pass orders by rejecting the same.