MARAKKAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Marakkal, the wife of late S. Rengasamy, filed this writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order in the nature of writ by calling for the records from respondents 1 and 2, i.e. the Government of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, and Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Public Department, Madras respectively, in their proceedings No. 129/174/81-FFSZ dated 12-9-1985 and L.W. No. 8879/81-14- Public (pp. IV) Department, D/-23-4-1986 and quash the same and direct the first and second respondents to grant pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (Centre) and Freedom Fighters' Pension (State) Pension Scheme.

(2.) In support of the said writ petition, the petitioner has sworn to an affidavit in which she has stated that her husband, late S. Rengasamy was a Freedom Fighter and he participated in the individual Sathyagraha in 1941 and also in Quit India Movement in 1942 against the British Government and he was imprisoned and suffered imprisonment in various jails for more than 11 months. Her husband applied for the grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, which is to be granted by the first respondent and also to the second respondent for the grant of pension payable by the State Government. The Schemes stipulate that if a person had undergone imprisonment for more than 6 months, the Central Government will grant pension and if a person had undergone imprisonment, for 21 days, the State Government will grant the pension. Since her husband had undergone imprisonment for more than 11 months, he is entitled to get the petition both from State Government and Central Government.

(3.) The first respondent in his proceedings No. l29/174/81-FFSZ, D/-12-9-l985 rejected the application on the ground that her husband's case does not come under the purview of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, D/-1-8-1980. As far as the second respondent is concerned, the State Government by its letter No. 8979/84-14 Public (PP-IV) Department, D/-28-4-l936, rejected the claim on the ground that he has not proved by any acceptable documentary evidence. Challenging the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.