V. Raman @ Ramin @ Ramamoorthy vs Union Territory and Union of India (UOI)

R. Banumathi, J.—Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the third Respondent in No.

52/CC/PON/38/2007-FF(SZ) dated 03.05.2010 and consequently direct the Respondents to grant Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (SSS)

and also State Freedom Fighters Pension with interest and arrears.

Petitioner was the freedom fighter, who fought for the liberation of Puducherry from the French during the period from 1947 to 1954.

According to the Petitioner, he has participated in various struggles against French imperialism, for which, he was falsely implicated in a political

assassination case and was also imposed imprisonment of ten years. In September, 1997, the Petitioner applied for grant of pension under the

State Government Pension Scheme for freedom fighters along with all documents and certificates. According to the Petitioner, the same was

unjustly rejected by the State Government. The Petitioner sent his application dated 02.12.2004 directly to Government of India seeking SSS

pension. The Government of India -third Respondent directed the Petitioner to apply to the State Government so as to enable them to scrutinise

the application and forward the same together with verification report as per the provisions of SSS pension. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner

has filed writ petition in W.P. No. 15252 of 2008 and by the order dated 02.02.2010, the High Court directed the Government to forward the

Petitioner''s application to Government of India with documents received from the Petitioner. It is the stand of Respondents 1 and 2 that the

Petitioner has not submitted substantive evidence linking his imprisonment on political ground and therefore, the first Respondent forwarded the

application to Government of India without recommendation.

By the impugned proceedings in No. 52/CC/Pon/38/2007-FF(SZ) dated 03.05.2010, the Government of India rejected the Petitioner''s claim

on the following grounds:

(i) He has not furnished any acceptable record based primary evidence, duly verified by the State Government, in support of his claimed jail and

underground sufferings undergone by him during freedom movement.

(ii)The Petitioner has not furnished substantive evidence linking his imprisonment on murder charges with the merger movement of Puducherry.

(iii)He has not furnished valid NARC from the State Government.

(iv)The Certificate issued by Shri.D.K. Ramanujam is neither a PKC (Personal Knowledge Certificate) or CPC (Co-prisoner Certificate)

In para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by Respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that ""if the Petitioner was released from imprisonment for his

involvement in the freedom struggle then he would have been released with other freedom fighters on 01.11.1954 itself and the very fact that the

Petitioner was released on 26.02.1955 would establish that his conviction was not related to freedom struggle"". Learned Counsel for the Petitioner

submitted that the above statement of Respondents 1 and 2 is incorrect. Petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the Directory of

Freedom Fighters of Union Territory of Pondicherry, which was released by the Government of Puducherry in pursuance of the directions of the

Government of India during the commemoration of 40 years of India''s independence and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Centenary. In the said

Directory at Page No. 21 in Sl. No. 108, it has been stated as follows:

Thiru M. Balasubramanian @ Balu, S/o.(Late) Murugesan - Born on 30.11.1928. He was an ardent worker of the youth congress and took

part in the agitators in 1946. He joined many processions and raised slogans against the French rule. He was imprisoned from 07.09.1951 to

05.03.1955 for 3 years, 5 months and 28 days - Drawing state pension.

Address: No. 19/A, Punniakotty Street, Pondicherry

This would clearly indicate that several freedom fighters were not released even after liberation of Puducherry on 01.11.1954. Freedom fighter

Balasubramanian was one among them. Merely because Petitioner was not released on 01.11.1954 cannot be the ground to say that his conviction

was not related to freedom struggle. In the light of the above, Respondents 1 and 2 ought to be directed to reconsider the case of the Petitioner.

Insofar as the second ground that the Petitioner not furnished substantive evidence linking his imprisonment on murder charges with the merger

movement of Puducherry, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the other entries in the Directory of Freedom

Fighters viz., Sl. No. 76 ((Late) V.R. Arumugam) and Sl. No. 842 (G. Srinivasan), which would indicate that the Government of Puducherry

recognises and pays pension to freedom fighters regardless of the charges against them for the only reason that cases were foisted by the French

Government. According to the Petitioner, in the struggle for freedom of Puducherry, on false charges, he was imprisoned for nearly five years and

the pension schemes are squarely applicable to him. In this regard, the Petitioner has also produced the certificate issued by Jail Department

certifying that the Petitioner was in central prison pursuant to conviction dated 01.03.1952 and his sentence taking effect from 02.09.1950.

Insofar as the third ground viz., non-availability of certificate, Petitioner relies upon the certificate issued by the Jail Department.

Insofar as the fourth ground, the Petitioner has produced the certificate issued by D.K. Ramanujam, who was the Ex-M.L.A.. As rightly

contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the documents produced by the Petitioner were not properly considered by Respondents 1

and 2. Without examining the documents, Respondents 1 and 2 are not right in saying that the Petitioner has not submitted substantive evidence

linking his imprisonment with political ground. The case of the Petitioner has to be considered on par with others like V.R. Arumugam and G.

Srinivasan, who were also granted State pension/SSS pension even though they have been convicted in a conspiracy case of murder. Since the

documents produced by the Petitioner were not properly considered by the Respondents, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. As rightly

held by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs.M.S. Mohammed Rawther (2007) 12 SCC 527), the Court must exercise judicial restraint in

such matter. The Court can only set it aside and remit the matter back to the Respondents for fresh decision.

In the result, the impugned order of the third Respondent in No. 52/CC/PON/38/2007-FF(SZ) dated 03.05.2010 is set aside and the writ

petition is allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to reconsider the matter and send appropriate recommendation to the third Respondent

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such recommendation/forwarding of the application,

the third Respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of

recommendation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.