Madras High Court
Malarmani vs The Secretary To Government Of India on 3 September, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
W.A.(MD)No.486 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A.(MD)No.486 of 2019
Malarmani . ..Appellant
vs.
1.The Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Home affairs / Grih Manthralaya,
1st Floor, Loak Nayak Bhavan,
Khan Market, New Delhi - 3.
2.The Additional Secretary to Government,
Public (Political Pension 1) Department,
St.George Fort, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Thanjavur District.
4.The Thasildhar,
Pattukottai Taluk,
Thanjavur District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act to set
aside the orders dated 07.12.2018 in W.P.(MD)No.20206 of 2018 and
allow the appeal.
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.486 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbiah for R1
Mr.D.Sachikumar
Additional Government Pleader
for R2 to R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)
The appellant filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.20206 of 2018
before this Court for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to
quash the impugned order of the first respondent in F.No.52/CC/8/2017-
FF/INA dated 10.08.2018 and consequently to direct the first respondent
to grant freedom fighters pension under Swatantra Sainik Semman
Pension Scheme by considering her application dated 20.01.2016.
2. The case of the appellant is as follows.
2.1. The appellant's husband by name Manickam served as a
Civilian Sepoy in Indian National Army and he actively participated in
the freedom struggle activities to quit the English people from our land.
During the freedom struggle period, he served in Unit No.7 Guerilla and
his Registration Number was T.L.No.56741. When he served as a Sepoy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in Indian National Army, a case was registered against him in connection
with the freedom struggle and he was sentenced with imprisonment from
21.03.1944 to 22.08.1945 at Bidadari. After independence, knowing
about the freedom fighters pension from other freedom fighters, he made
an application to the State Government for pension. In pursuance
thereof, he was getting pension from 10.10.1970 till his death i.e.,
31.01.2010. After his demise, the appellant made an application to the
third respondent for freedom fighters pension as a surviving dependent,
which was duly considered and now, the appellant is getting pension
from the State government.
2.2. Even during the life time of the appellant's husband, he took
several steps to obtain Central Government pension for freedom fighters,
but his claim was not considered. In the meanwhile, he died on
31.01.2010. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get freedom fighters
pension under the Central Government Scheme. The appellant made an
application on 20.01.2016 to the second respondent for pension under the
Central Government Scheme. She furnished all the required documents
sought for by the second respondent to the fourth respondent on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22.08.2016 itself. Since there was no subsequent development on her
application, she approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.
(MD)No.1351 of 2017 seeking a direction to the respondents therein to
grant freedom fighters pension under Swatantra Sainik Semman Pension
Scheme. This Court also passed an order directing the respondents
therein to consider the representation to be submitted by the appellant by
affording an opportunity of hearing to her and thereafter, decide the issue
on merits and in accordance with law in light of the orders passed by this
Court in the case of A.Pitchai vs. The District Collector and others in
W.P.(MD)No.7758 of 2015 dated 03.06.2015.
2.3. Subsequently, the appellant made a representation along with
documents and the order passed by this Court. However, the same was
not considered immediately. After receipt of the contempt notice on
10.08.2018, the first respondent rejected the appellant's claim mainly on
two grounds, that the appellant is a second wife of the deceased
Manickam and that she did not produce Jail Certificate of her husband to
prove the imprisonment. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed
the subject writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.20206 of 2018. However, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned Single Judge without considering the earlier decision of this
Court, simply dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, this writ appeal.
3. The case of the respondents is as follows.
3.1. The appellant who claims herself as the second wife of the
deceased Manickam is not entitled to freedom fighters pension under the
Central Government Scheme as a dependent of the deceased Manickam
for several reasons. As per the Scheme, the approval of freedom fighters
pension to the dependent is permissible only when the freedom fighter
was provided with pension under the Scheme. Whereas, in this case, the
deceased Manickam made a representation for pension as early as in the
year 1974 under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. The name
of the Scheme was subsequently changed as Swatantra Sainik Semman
Pension Scheme, 1980. The deceased Manickam was directed to furnish
Imprisonment Certificate or Equivalent Certificate to prove his sufferings
in jail as a freedom fighter. He was also directed to get the assistance of
the District / State Level Committee for furnishing the requisite
information. However, he did not produce the requisite particulars and
he never made any further attempt to proceed with the application during
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
his life time. Further, in his application, wife's name is mentioned as
Lakshmi, who is his first wife. After his demise, the appellant herein,
filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.1351 of 2017, in which, the
respondents therein were directed to consider her application in
accordance with law.
3.2. On consideration of the appellant's application, the first
respondent found that the basic requirement of primary evidence is not
available and she has not also produced the Co-prisoner Certificate in the
prescribed format and therefore, she is not entitled to get pension under
Swatantra Sainik Semman Pension Scheme, 1980. Hence, the first
respondent passed an order of rejection. The learned Single Judge after
considering all the facts, dismissed the writ petition and the same
warrants no interference by this Court.
4.1. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
deceased Manickam got divorced with his first wife under the customary
practice. Therefore, the appellant alone is the legally wedded wife of the
deceased Manickam. The competent Court recognized the appellant as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the legally wedded wife of the deceased Manickam. The deceased
Manickam, even during his life time received pension under the State
Government Scheme. After demise, only the appellant applied for
pension under the State Government Scheme. The State Government
also recognized her as a legally wedded wife and granted pension to her
as a dependant of the deceased Manickam. However, the first respondent
failed to consider all those facts and simply rejected her application for
pension under the Central Government Scheme.
4.2. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit
that even on an earlier writ petition, this Court after considering all the
facts, directed the respondents therein to consider the application to be
filed by the appellant and pass orders on merits and in accordance with
law. Even after such direction, the first respondent failed to consider the
case of the appellant and dismissed the application. Therefore, the
appellant once again approached this Court by way of writ petition in
W.P.(MD)No.20206 of 2018. However, the learned Single Judge failed
to consider the directions given in the earlier writ petition and dismissed
the subject writ petition. The deceased Manickam during his life time
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had applied for pension under the Central Government Scheme by
enclosing all the required documents. However, unfortunately, though
he was eligible to get the said pension, he could not receive the same
during his life time. Therefore, the appellant as a legally wedded wife as
well as the dependant of the deceased Manickam, is now fighting for
pension under the Central Government Scheme. Even though, she has
produced all the requisite documents and particulars before the
Authorities, the first respondent without considering all the facts simply
rejected her application without any valid reason. The learned Single
Judge failed to consider the facts of the case and dismissed the writ
petition, which warrants interference by this Court. The appeal is hence
liable to be allowed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would
submit that as per the Swatantra Sainik Semman Pension Scheme,
approval of freedom fighters pension to the dependant is permissible
only when the freedom fighter was provided with pension under the
Scheme. But, in this case, the deceased Manickam made an application
for freedom fighters pension in the year 1974. On receipt of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
application, he was directed to furnish Imprisonment Certificate or
Equivalent Certificate to prove that he had suffered imprisonment in jail
as freedom fighter. He was also directed to get the assistance of District /
State Level Committee for furnishing the requisite information. During
his life time, he failed to produce the requisite documents. More
particularly, in the application filed by the deceased Manickam, the name
of the appellant was not mentioned anywhere, only the name of his first
wife by name Lakshmi was mentioned. The deceased Manickam did not
produce the requisite documents and the Co-prisoner Certificate in
prescribed format and subsequently, the appellant also has not submitted
the said Certificate in the format as prescribed in the Scheme. The
deceased did not receive pension under the Central Government Scheme
during his life time. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to the pension
under Central Government Scheme, even assuming that she is the legally
wedded wife of the deceased Manickam. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge elaborately discussed all the points and thereafter dismissed the
writ petition. There are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to
be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Heard both sides and perused the records available before this
Court.
7. Admittedly, the deceased Manickam, claiming to be a freedom
fighter made an application before the competent authority in the year
1974 for pension under the Central Government Scheme. Though he
received a communication of the first respondent dated 22.08.1974,
asking him to furnish certain documents and particulars as required under
the Scheme, he failed to do so during his life time. He died on
31.01.2010. Therefore, admittedly, from 22.08.1974 till 31.01.2010 i.e,
for more than 35 years, even after the receipt of the communication from
the first respondent for submission of requisite documents, he did not
produce the requisite documents.
8. After the demise of the so called freedom fighter deceased
Manickam, the appellant made a representation in the year 2016 for
pension under the Central Government Scheme stating that she is a
legally wedded wife of the deceased Manickam. The appellant has also
produced the decree passed by the Civil Court subsequent to the death of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Manickam in O.S.No.86 of 2016 on 21.07.2010. However, since the
deceased Manickam did not produce any documents as sought for by the
first respondent during his lifetime, no pension was granted to him under
the said Scheme. Therefore, even assuming that the appellant is his wife,
she is not entitled to get pension under the Central Government Scheme
automatically.
9. The learned Single Judge also referred to the guidelines
regarding the payment of pension to the freedom fighters in paragraph
nos.11 and 12 of the orders passed in the subject writ petition and the
same is extracted hereunder.
"11.Later when several complaints regarding the discrepancies and fraudulent
claim of freedom fighter pension, spurted guidelines for disbursing was issued
by Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein it is stated in paragraph No.1.5 as below:
“1.5.Sanction of pension after the death of Freedom Fighter: No pension
shall be sanctioned in the name of the freedom fighter after his/her death
even if his/her matter was under examination. This also entails that no
life time arrears or dependent pension shall be sanctioned to his/her
spouse/daughter after the death of the freedom fighter”.
12.In case of transferring, the said freedom fighter pension after the death of
the freedom fighter, the following guidelines have been issued to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Department:
“5.Sanctioning the dependent pension to spouse or daughters of Freedom
Fighter:- Dependent pension shall be sanctioned to the spouse or
unmarried daughters only if their names were appearing in the original
application form submitted by the freedom fighter or the sanction letter
issued by the Ministry. If the freedom fighter marries or has a daughter,
either own or adopted, after the sanction of the pension , then family
pension to such spouses or daughter shall not be admissible”.
10. Furthermore, the Co-prisoner Certificate furnished by the
appellant is not based on any records. There is no record to show that the
person who issued the Certificate as well as claimers were Civilian
Sepoys in Indian National Army and they were imprisoned in Bidadari,
Singapore during the prescribed period. The enrolment number of the
deceased Manickam in the prison was also not mentioned for the
authorities to verify the same. Therefore, a perusal of the entire materials
show that, admittedly, during his lifetime, the deceased Manickam did
not produce the requisite documents and particulars and he did not also
comply with the norms prescribed under the Central Government
Scheme. There is no genuineness in the documents attached to the
subsequent application of the appellant and those materials are highly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
doubtful. She produced unauthorized documents and she has also not
produced enrolment number for the purpose of verification.
11. Except for the fact that the appellant is receiving pension under
the State Government Scheme, no other genuine material has been
produced before the Writ Court to meet out the requirement under the
Central Government Scheme. The appellant receiving pension under the
State Government Scheme does not automatically entitle her to receive
pension under the Central Government scheme. The norms prescribed by
the State Government and the Central Government vary and in the instant
case, the appellant has not satisfied the norms of the Central Government
Scheme. The learned Single Judge also elaborately considered the
affidavit filed by the appellant, the counter filed by the respondents,
submissions made by both the counsel on record and the materials placed
before the Court and dismissed the writ petition. In the present appeal,
this Court while scrutinizing the entire materials placed before the writ
Court and also the orders of the writ Court, does not find any special
circumstances to allow the appeal. We find no merits in the appeal and
therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(P.V., J.) (K.K.R.K.,J.)
03.09.2024
NCC:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
mbi
To
1.The Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Home affairs / Grih Manthralaya,
1st Floor, Loak Nayak Bhavan,
Khan Market, New Delhi - 3.
2.The Additional Secretary to Government,
Public (Political Pension 1) Department,
St.George Fort, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Thanjavur District.
4.The Thasildhar,
Pattukottai Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
mbi
03.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
