Authorities should realise that granting pension to freedom fighters is not a charity being extended by government. It is the government’s bounden duty to grant the sum without loss of time.
Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu made the observation while directing the Secretary, Public Department, to grant Freedom Fighters’ Pension to one N. Subramaniam (87) from April 1998, the date of his original application.
It appeared that the official had chosen to search for reasons to reject the octogenarian’s request rather than finding a reason to grant the pension. “It is nothing but a pedantic approach when the authorities are expected to have a pragmatic one while considering these types of cases,” the Judge observed adding that the petitioner who fought for the country’s freedom had to struggle now to get his pension.
Mr. Subramaniam said he joined the Indian Independence League in 1944 in the Dallah Branch, Rangoon. He participated in the freedom struggle, arrested by the British and tried by Allied Marshal Court and imprisoned in the Rangoon Central Jail for more than six months in 1945. He was entitled to the State Freedom Fighters’ Pension.
He applied for pension in April 1998. By an order of April 16 last year, the government rejected the request on the ground that the records furnished were not in consonance with the rules and no new material was filed.
Mr. Justice Ravichandrabaabu said the petitioner’s status as a freedom fighter was not disputed. In support of his claim that he participated in various struggles, he had filed the documents. The authorities admitted that the petitioner’s hut was destroyed in a fire accident on November 18, 1996. Therefore, he could not be expected to have the original documents. Moreover, the Chennai Collector had already recommended to the government to sanction the pension in October 2005.
The rejection order was totally unsustainable. Mere technical objections should not stand in the way of disbursing pension to freedom fighters. Moreover, the High Court had earlier directed the government to consider Mr. Subramaniam’s claim based on the Collector’s recommendation, the Judge said allowing the petition.
