LexUNION OF INDIA versus R.V. SWAMY@ VELLAICHAMY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA v. R.V. SWAMY@VELLAICHAMY MARCH 31, 1997 B (K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) Pe11sio1i-Ce11tral freedom Fighters Pe11sio11 Scl1eme-Eligibili1y f oi-- Respo11de11t's claim for pemio1i-Clai111 11ot accepted by Govemmellt after co11Sidering the evidenc~Writ-Direction by High Court to gra11t pensio11 to _ C respo11de11l-Appeal by U11io11 of llldia-Held it bei11g a pure appreciation of evide11ce, tile High Court was not justified i11 directing grallt of Freedom Fighter Pensio11 to the respo11de11t-Respo11de11t's wife given liberty to approach State Govemmellt for gra11t of pe11sion. Freedom Fighters Pe11siott-Eligibility Ce1tificate-Pers011s competent D to gnmt-Govem111e11t of illdia should lay dow11 guidelines. , Mukund Lal Bhandali & Ors. v. U11io11 of lltdia & Ors., (1993] Supp. 3 SCC 2 and Union of India v. Moha11 Singh & Ors., (1996] 10 SCC 351, referred to. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 'lfJ79 of 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 3.1.96 of the Madras High Court in W.P.No. 11957 of 1994. F Hemant Sharma and P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellant. Ms. N. Annapoorani A. Mariarputham (NP) for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : G 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 H High Court, on appreciation of evidence, has observed in paragraph 9 of • 458 U.O.l.v. RV.SWAMY 459 the judgment as under : · A "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 B 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 certificates given by the prominent freedom fighters are to be accepted. Added to this, the claim of the petitioner also finds place C in the book published by the Government of Tamil Nadu and it further supports the claim of the petitioner that he suffered im- prisonment 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 there is no material to show that the arrest warrant D was issued against the petitioner. cannot be taken as 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 by the authorities or the Court which· had issued arrest a warrant that could have been a different matter. At any rate, even the same Collector recommended for the sanction of Central Pension to the E 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 circumstances of the case and the materials placed on record, I F · 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 and the first G respondent did not consider the claim of the petitioner, having regard to the guidelines and directions given in 1hangavela v. 1he Government of India, (1994) 1 MU 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, H 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R. A the petitioner is entitled to get the pension sought for.• B c D E F . 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 Pen- sion Scheme. The scheme postulates as under : "4. w~o is eligible : For the purpose of g
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.