STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. versus A. MANICKAM PILLAI

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 27-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 72 
t 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. 
v. 
A. MANICKAM PILLAI 
(Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2007) 
JANUARY 27, 2010 
[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 matter1 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 
B 
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. 
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 
0 
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 
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.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.