http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: R.V. SWAMY @ R. VELLAICHAMY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       31/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Substitution allowed.      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  High Court  of Madras,  made  on  3.1.1996  in  writ petition No.11957/94.  The High  Court, on  appreciation  of evidence, has  observed in  paragraph 9  of the  judgment as under:      " I  have carefully  considered the      submissions of  learned counsel for      the petitioner and the respondents.      Admittedly,  the   petitioner   was      sanctioned freedom fighters pension      by  the   state  Government.   Five      prominent  Freedom   Fighters  have      given   certificates    who    were      eligible to  give such certificates      under the very scheme   and nothing      is  stated   to   discredit   these      certificates.  In   view   of   the      certificates   produced    by   the      petitioner though  the records  for      the relevant period of 1942-43 were      not  available   since  they   were      destroyed, the  certificated  given      by the  prominent freedom  fighters      are to  be accepted. Added to this,      the claim  of the  petitioner  also      finds   place in the book published      by the Government of Tamil Nadu and      it further  supports the  claim  of      the  petitioner  that  he  suffered      imprisonment for  a period  of  two      months in Alipuram Jail. The report      of the collector of Madurai that no      record  as  to  arrest  warrant  is      available  or   that   the   arrest      warrant  was   issued  against  the      petitioner  cannot   be  taken   as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    conclusive because there is nothing      to show  that as  to  what  is  the      basis for  such a  statement. If it      were to  be a certificate issued bu      the authorities  or the Court which      had issued arrest different matter.      At  any   rate,   even   the   same      collector   recommended   for   the      sanction of  Central Pension to the      petitioner.   Even    on    earlier      occasion, the  state Government had      recommended for  grant  of  central      Freedom  Fighters  pension  to  the      petitioner as  can be seen from the      letter dated 22.1.1982 addressed to      the first  respondent. Thus, having      regard  to   overall  thus,  having      regard to  overall circumstances of      the case  and the  materials placed      on record, I am of the opinion that      the petitioner is entitled to grant      of pension  under the  SSS  pension      scheme of  the central  Government.      Having regard  to the fact that the      petitioner has  been struggling  to      get pension from 14.12.1981 and the      petitioner   made an application to      the first  respondent for the third      time and  in view  of the fact that      this court remanded the case of the      first respondent  did not  consider      the claim of the petitioner, having      regard  to   the   guidelines   and      directions given  in Thangavela vs.      The Government  of  India  (1994(1)      MLJ 622), I do not think that it is      appropriate  to  direct  the  first      respondent again  to  consider  the      case of  the petitioner. In view of      the materials placed on record, the      petitioner is  entitled to  get the      pension sought for."      The High  Court directed grant of pension to R.V. Swamy @ R.  vellaichamy who has expired. The legal representatives have been  brought  on record for grant of pension under the central Freedom Fighters pension scheme postulates as under:      "4. Who is eligible:           For the  purpose of  grant  of      Samman Pension  under the scheme, a      freedom fighter is:      (a)  A pensioner  who  had suffered      a minimum imprisonment of six moths      in  the   mainland   jails   before      Independence.    However,    ex-INA      personnel  will   be  eligible   of      pension           if            the      imprisonment/detention suffered  by      them was outside India.      (b)  The minimum  period of  actual      imprisonment  of   eligibility   of      pension has  been reduced  to three      months, in  case of women and SC/ST      freedom fighters form 1.8.1980.      IN Explanation:4.  Broken period of      imprisonment will be totaled up for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    computing the qualifying period.      (b)   A    person   who    remained      underground  for   more  than   six      months provided he was :      1.   A proclaimed offender; or      2.   One  on   whom  an  award  for      arrest/head was announced; or      3.   One for  whose detention order      was issued but not served."      The question,  therefore, is: whether the view taken by the High  Court is correct in law ? This Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari &  Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. {1993 Supp.(3) at 5] held thus:      " As regards the sufficiency of the      proof, the  scheme itself  mentions      the documents which are required to      be produced  before the Government.      It is  not Possible  for this Court      to scrutinize  the documents  which      according to  the petitioner,  they      had produced  in support  of  their      claim  an   pronounce  upon   their      genuineness. It  is the function of      the Government  to do so. we would,      therefore, direct accordingly."      In Union of India vs. Mohan Singh & Ors. [(1966) 10 SCC 351] the  High court directed the Government to consider the case of  the respondent therein for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension. The  respondents therein  relied upon a certificate of co-prisoner  and an MLA and sought pension on that basis. The Government considered the certificate and found the same as  not  acceptable.  When  the  second  writ  petition  was admitted on  the ground  that the  certificate  of  MLA  was sufficient proof,  This  court  following  the  judgment  in Mukund Lal  Bhandari’s case  has held  in  paragraph  5,  as extracted earlier.      In this  case, the evidence does indicate that there is no proof  of any  warrant issued against the respondent as a proclaimed offender  nor is  there any  evidence  of  actual proof indicating actual sentence .      Under  these   circumstance   the   reliance   on   the certificate issued by the persons mentioned in  the judgment of the High Court is matter of appreciation of  evidence.      The question  is: whether  the High  court is  right in appreciating  the   evidence  and   to  conclude   that  the respondent is  freedom fighter  to claim  Freedom    Fighter pension.  The  Government,  in  fact,  has  considered  that evidence and stated as under:      "In   compliance   of   the   above      direction of the Hon’ble High Court      your  case   has  again   been  re-      examined. It is, However, regretted      that it  has not  been possible  to      granted  that   it  ha   not   been      possible to  grant you  pension for      the following reasons :      (i)  The Government  of Tamil  Nadu      has reported  that  no  warrant  of      arrest was  issued against  you and      no  other   acceptable  documentary      evidence was  available in proof of      your claimed  underground suffering      for more than six months.      (ii) No jail record for the claimed      imprisonment period  from 2nd  week

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

    of September  1941, to  Ist week of      November, 1941 has been furnished.      (iii) Since  no warrant  of  arrest      etc.  was  issued  against  you  as      reported by  the state  Government.      The certificates  from S/Shri  P.S.      Lakshmipathy Raju,  A.B. Nagier and      Dr. T.  khannan D. Ramakrishnan, I,      Mayandi    Bharati     and     A.K.      Sonnamurthu  are   not  acceptable,      because  for  sanction  of  pension      person   should    have    remained      underground against  some executive      of the  Government before  issue of      arrest etc.      (iv) The non-availability of record      certificate     with  reference  to      issue of  warrant  of  arrest  etc.      against you  as submitted  by  you,      has been issued in 1988 wherein you      did not mention the specific detail      of   case    No.   etc.   in   your      application for  issue  of  warrant      etc. Since  earlier in  1985  state      Government have  already  intimated      that no  arrest  warrant  etc.  was      issued  against  you.  In  view  of      these circumstances  NARC cannot be      accepted."      In view  of the  above consideration,  it being  a pure appreciation of  evidence, the  High court was not justified in  directing  grant  of  Freedom  Fighter  pension  to  the respondent.      Of late, large number of cases have been coming up quit frequently for grant of Freedom Fighter pension on the basis of the  certificates issued  by some  persons with status of freedom fighters  and are  by and  large  not  found  to  be acceptable  to   the  Government  of  India.  Since  several matters  are  coming  up  to  this  court,  it  is  for  the Government of  India to  re-consider the  matter and  to lay dawn appropriate  clear guidelines for the so-called freedom fighter who  issue certificated  to persons who come forward for  Freedom   Fighter  pension.  Learned  counsel  for  the respondent  Fighter   pension.  Learned   counsel  for   the respondent has  stated that  since the  state Government has recommended the  case of  the deceased-respondent-window may be given  liberty to  approach the  state Government in that behalf. Liberty  is given to her to approach in that behalf. Liberty is given to her to approach the state Government. It is for  the state  Government to  consider  the  application according to their guidelines and dispose it of on merits      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.