State of
Tamil Nadu & ANR. Vs. A. Manicham Pillai [2010] INSC 64 (27 January 2010)
Judgment
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
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 pension on 30th December
1996. This representation was rejected by the Collector on 21st August 1997.
Undeterred, the respondent again filed an application on the 8th 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 Order No.30 dated
7th 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 per the Government instructions dated
7th February 1996, it was mandatory for an applicant seeking a freedom
fighter's pension to produce co-prisoner certificates from two of the persons
mentioned in the Memorandum dated 16th 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 appeal by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 26th 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 the order dated 7th February 1996, the
mere fact that some certificates had been appended or a recommendation had been
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 assuming that
the Government Order dated 7th 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-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 Government instructions dated 7th February 1996. The second
certificate appended in the High Court by the respondent was the one issued by
Karuppan Chettiar dated 30th 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 the communication dated 7th 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 the Government Order of 16th November
1988. Realizing this difficulty, the State Government by its order dated 7th
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 7th 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.
Back
