(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

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  

2

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  

3

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-

4

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  

5

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  

6

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.

( T.S. THAKUR ) NEW DELHI, January 27th, 2010

7