Full Judgment Text
(REPORTABLE)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4400 OF 2007
State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. ……..
Appellants
Versus
A.Manickam Pillai …….Respondent
J U D G M E N T
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
1. This appeal is an example and a reflection of the way we
treat our freedom fighters inasmuch that while we applaud
their contributions to the fight for freedom, deny them a
pension, which, even if granted, amounts to a pittance and
while many who apply are under financial distress, all without
exception, wear it as a badge of honour and as a certificate of
recognition of their efforts in the struggle for independence.
2. The respondent, A. Manickam Pillai claiming to be a
freedom fighter, applied for the grant of a freedom fighter’s
2
th
pension on 30 December 1996. This representation was
rejected by the Collector on 21st August 1997. Undeterred,
th
the respondent again filed an application on the 8 May 1998
and after a recommendation by two Collectors and the District
Level Screening Committee, it was forwarded to the State
Government. This was, however, rejected by the State
Government on the ground that in the face of Government
th
Order No.30 dated 7 February 1996 such an application had
to be supported by a certificate of a co-prisoner who was a
Government approved certifier and the certificate appended
had been issued by one Mayandi Bharathi, who was not a
Government approved certifier. The respondent thereupon
filed a writ petition in the High Court, appending therewith
another certificate issued by one Karuppan Chettiar certifying
as accurate (on the basis of his personal knowledge) the
contents of the certificate issued by Mayandi Bharathi. Before
the Single Bench, the appellant-State took the stand that as
th
per the Government instructions dated 7 February 1996, it
was mandatory for an applicant seeking a freedom fighter’s
pension to produce co-prisoner certificates from two of the
3
th
persons mentioned in the Memorandum dated 16 November
1988 indicating specifically that the applicant as well as the
certifiers had undergone imprisonment in the same jail and in
the absence of such evidence, the applicant was not entitled to
a pension. It was pointed out that neither Mayandi Bharathi
nor Karuppan Chettiar satisfied this rigid test. The learned
Single Judge, however, rejected this plea by observing that as
the respondent’s case for pension had been recommended by
two Collectors and the District Level Screening Committee, the
mere fact that a co-prisoner’s certificate had not been
appended would make no difference and having held as above,
allowed the writ petition. This judgment was affirmed in
th
appeal by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 26 June
2006 which has now been impugned before us.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that in the light of the fact that the respondent had
not provided the documents/evidence that was envisaged in
th
the order dated 7 February 1996, the mere fact that some
certificates had been appended or a recommendation had been
4
made by the Collectors or the District Level Screening
Committee would not entitle the respondent to a pension. It
has been submitted that the Government Order had to be read
in toto and the right created in the respondent by the said
order was circumscribed by the conditions laid down for its
applicability.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however,
submitted that the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the
High Court had clearly observed that the fact that the
respondent was indeed a freedom fighter, had not been
disputed by the appellant-State or its agents and even
th
assuming that the Government Order dated 7 February 1996
was applicable, in the facts as given above, this Court should
not interfere in the matter under Article 136 of the
Constitution.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties. It will be seen that the
respondent, had, in the writ petition, appended two
certificates, one given by Mayandi Bharathi, who was a co-
5
prisoner with the respondent and was also recipient of a
freedom fighter’s pension sanctioned by the Government of
Tamil Nadu and other benefits as well in accordance with that
status, and this certificate gave full details with regard to the
incarceration of the respondent and his contribution to the
freedom movement. This certificate had earlier been rejected
by the State Government on the plea that the Mayandi
Bharathi was not an approved certifier, as required by the
th
Government instructions dated 7 February 1996. The
second certificate appended in the High Court by the
respondent was the one issued by Karuppan Chettiar dated
th
30 December 1998 who was an approved certifier and who
certified that he knew the respondent and further that the
contents of the certificate issued by Mayandi Bharathi were
correct, and he accordingly recommended the respondent’s
claim. We see that the stand of the appellant-State based on
th
the communication dated 7 February 1996 is, in fact,
misplaced. This communication refers to the difficulty being
faced by applicants for freedom fighters’ pension in producing
co-prisoner certificates from two of the persons mentioned in
6
th
the Government Order of 16 November 1988. Realizing this
th
difficulty, the State Government by its order dated 7
February 1996 issued a modified and simplified procedure for
the grant of certificates with effect from that date. A perusal
of this G.O. would reveal that freedom fighter certificates could
now be issued by approved certifiers and these were held as
sufficient evidence for the grant of a pension. The G.O.
further set out the constitution of District Level Screening
Committees to be nominated by the Government in
consultation with the Collectors concerned and that these
committees were required to personally examine the
documents produced and decide as to the entitlement of the
applicant to the grant of pension and refer the matter for
formal approval to the State Government.
6. We find two certificates on record – one of Mayandi
Bharathi and the other of Karuppan Chettiar, an approved
certifier. We also see that the matter had been recommended
by two Collectors and the District Level Screening Committee.
This was sufficient compliance with the Government Order of
7
th
7 February 1996. Significantly, the State Government has
not disputed the respondent’s claim on facts. We are, thus,
disinclined to interfere in the matter under our jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution. Dismissed. No costs.
…………………………..J.
( HARJIT SINGH BEDI )
………………………
…..J.
( T.S. THAKUR )
NEW DELHI,
th
January 27 , 2010