T MAHADEVAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant claims that he is eligible for pension under the "Tamil Nadu Payment of Pension to Tamil Scholars and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1983", (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). He further claims that he is a person, who has exhibited conspicuous courage and nobility in his enthusiasm for Tamil Language and in his zeal to preserve the growth of Tamil Language. In this regard, he submitted an application to the Government on 7.9.1990. According to him, he participated in Anti Hindi Agitation during the year 1965, for that, he was arrested by the police and detained in prison for one day. Such detention in prison for one day, according to him, proves his eligibility for pension under the Act.

(2.) He further states that on holding enquiry, the District Collector, by his Letter No. 42036/A6/98, dated 14.10.1999, reported to the Government that the appellant was detained in prison for one day, viz., on 13.2.1965 for his participation in the said agitation. Despite the said report, according to the appellant, his application has not been considered and no order has been passed. In those circumstances, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD). No. 2046 of 2005 seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant pension under the said Act.

(3.) In the counter filed by the respondents before the learned single Judge, it was contended, inter alia, that as per Rule 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Pension to Tamil Scholars and Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), a High Level Committee was constituted in G.O. Ms. No. 172, Tamil Development Culture Department, dated 27.8.1996, under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Minister for Tamil Official Language and Culture and the said Committee decided during its meeting held on 10.6.1998 that only those who were convicted and imprisoned in various jails for more than 14 days and above shall be considered for sanction of pension under the Scheme. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, since he had not undergone imprisonment for the required period of 14 days in jail, his request was not considered by the High Level Committee in its meeting held on 10.6.1998 and 19.2.1999, it is contended.