In a significant clarification, the Madras High Court has ruled that the grant of a freedom fighter pension by a state government does not automatically entitle the recipient to a similar pension from the Central government. The court emphasized that the eligibility conditions under the Union government's scheme must be independently fulfilled.
Court Reverses Single Judge Order, Stresses on Documentary Proof
A division bench comprising Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan set aside an earlier order from a single judge. The single judge had directed the Central government to pay pension to S Rukmani, the wife of deceased freedom fighter S Somasundaram. The bench allowed an appeal filed by the Union government against this order.
The court observed that expanding welfare schemes through judicial interpretation exceeds the proper scope of judicial review. It stressed that the specific documentary requirements mandated under the Central scheme cannot be bypassed or applied leniently simply because a state government has recognized an individual's status.
The Case of Freedom Fighter S Somasundaram
The litigation revolved around the claim of S Somasundaram, who stated he participated in the Quit India Movement and other freedom struggle activities in Coimbatore. He claimed imprisonment in the Coimbatore Central Prison from September 1, 1942, to April 16, 1943 – a period exceeding six months.
Based on these claims, the Tamil Nadu state government granted him the Freedom Fighters Pension. Subsequently, he applied for the Central Freedom Fighters Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman (SSS) Pension Scheme.
However, the Central government rejected his application in 2005. The rejection was based on several grounds:
- Failure to produce acceptable official jail records.
- Non-submission of a Non-Availability of Records Certificate (NARC).
- Issues with the submitted Co-Prisoner Certificates (CPCs).
Legal Journey and Final Ruling
Challenging this rejection, Somasundaram approached the Madras High Court. A single judge ruled in his favor, stating that the eligibility norms under the Central scheme need not be applied too strictly. The judge held that the grant of pension by the state government should be treated as sufficient recognition of his freedom fighter status.
The Union government appealed this decision. By the time the appeal was heard, Somasundaram had passed away, and his wife, S Rukmani, continued the litigation as a family pensioner.
The division bench, while allowing the Centre's appeal, provided a crucial concession. It granted liberty to the petitioner to reapply under the Central scheme if all the required documents are subsequently produced and submitted. This leaves the door open for the family to furnish the necessary proof and seek the pension afresh.
This ruling underscores a clear legal distinction between state and central welfare schemes. It establishes that while one level of government may acknowledge a claim, the other retains the right to assess it based on its own stringent criteria and evidentiary standards.
