STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.versusA. MANICKAM PILLAI

                         [2010]
                            t
                                2 S.C.R. 72


A                STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
                                 v.
                        A. MANICKAM PILLAI
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2007)
                        JANUARY 27, 2010
B
         [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

       Freedom Fighters' Pension - Claim for - Application
  appended with certificate from co-pensioner - Claim rejected
C by State Government as the application, was not appended
  with certificate from approved certifier - Writ petition
  appended with certificate from approved certifier - Single
  Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court granted the
  claim - On appeal, held: State Government was not correct
o in rejecting the claim as the same was recommended by two
  Collectors and District Level Screening Committee -
  Requirement of certificate from approved certifier was
  introduced to curb the difficulty faced by the claimants in
  getting certificate from co-prisoners Constitution of India-Art.
E 136.

          Respondent's application for grant of freedom
     fighter's pension was rejected by State Government on
     the ground that the co-prisoner, whose certificate was
     appended to the application, was not an approved
F    certifier.

       The Respondent filed a writ petition, appending
  therewith another certificate issued by an approved
  certifier. A Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ
G petition. The judgment was affirmed by Division Bench
                                        I   I

  of High Court. Hence the present appeal.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1.1. The certificate issued by the co-prisoner
H·                               72
   STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. v. A. MANICKAM              73
                    'PILLAI
 had beeri rejected by the State Government on the plea         A
 that the co-prisoner was not an approved certifier, as
 required by the Government instructions dated 7th
 February 1996. The stand of the appellant-State based on
 the communication dated 7th February 1996 is misplaced.
 This communication refers to the difficulty being faced by     B
 applicants for a 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            c
 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       0
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         E
of the applicant to the grant of pension and refer the
matter for the formal approval to the State Government.
[Para 5] [76-A-H]

     1.2. In the present case, there are two certificates on
 record. The matter had also been recommended by two            F
Collectors and the District Level Screening Committee.
This was sufficient compliance with the Government
Order of 7th February 1996. The Court, is thus,
disinclined to interfere in the matter 1 in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.    G
[Para 6] [77-A-B]

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4400 of 2007.
                                                                H
    74       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [201 O] 2 S.C.R.


A       From the Judgment & Order dated 26.6.2006 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 745 of 2006.

         T. Harish Kumar (NP) for the Appellants.

         S. Ravi Shankar for the Respondent.
B
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. This appeal is an example
    and a reflection of the way we treat our freedom fighters
c   inasmuch that while we applaud t~eir 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.
0
          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
E   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
F   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
G   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
H   Government instructions dated 7th February 1996, it was
  STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. v. A MANICKAM                       75
         PILLAI [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
mandatory for an applicant seeking a freedom fighter's pension         A
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          B
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             c
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.                                 0
     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                E
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                  F
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                 G
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.
                                                                       H
    76       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 2 S.C.R.


A        5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the
   learned counsel for the parties. It will be seen that the
   respondent, had, frrthe 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
B 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 thf'i State
c 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
D 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
E is, in fact, mispla~ed. 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
F 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
G 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.
H
    STATE 'OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. v. A. MANICKAM                    77
            PILLAI [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
          6. We find two certificates on record - one of Mayandi         A
    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       B
    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.

 K.K.T.                                         Appeal dismissed.        C