AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Prayer sought in this writ petition is mainly to direct the 2nd Respondent to forward necessary recommendations to the 1st Respondent so as to enable the 1st Respondent to issue order granting freedom fighters pension to the Petitioner. The Petitioner submits that her husband Late Sri.P. Kesavan was a freedom fighter and a member of the Indian National Army. It is stated that by Ext.P1 order, the State Government granted him freedom fighters pension. Her husband expired on 15.6.1990. Thereafter, Ext.P2 order was issued granting pension to the Petitioner.
Petitioner states that during his life time, her husband had preferred a claim for central freedom fighters pension which was rejected by the 1st Respondent on technical grounds. It is averred that her husband had undergone detention in Bidadasi camp for seven months and that since he had no document to support his case of detention, he did not claim the same in the application for Central Pension.
Petitioner submits that after the death of her husband,she made repeated representations, the last of which is Ext.P5and that in spite of all this, the 2nd Respondent did notrecommend her case for pension of the 1st Respondent. It istherefore this writ petition is filed.
The learned Government Pleader who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that under the rules governing grant of Central Pension, the applicant has to produce certificate issued by the detaining authority or at least, certificate issued by co-prisoners, to the effect that the claimant was under detention for more than six months. It is stated on the Petitioner''s own showing, neither the applicant nor the Petitioner produced any document to prove the case that her husband was under detention for more than six months. It is stated that it was therefore the Respondents were unable to recommend the case to the 1st Respondent.
Admittedly, rules framed by the 1st Respondent requires production of certificates to prove the claim of detention by the applicant for freedom fighters pension. In this case, the Petitioner does not even claim that any such certificate issued either by the detaining authority or by any co-prisoner has been produced to substantiate the claim in connection with the imprisonment of her husband.
6 Therefore, on the materials available, the 2ndRespondent cannot be faulted for not making anyrecommendation to the 1st Respondent for granting freedomfighters pension to the Petitioner''s husband or to her.
Therefore, I am unable to find any merit in the claims raised.