Madras High Court: In a case deciding whether grant of State Government Freedom Fighters Pension would automatically extend to Central Government Freedom Fighters Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (‘SSS Scheme’), the Division Bench of S.M. Subramaniam* and C. Kumarappan, JJ., held that the eligibility conditions stipulated under the SSS Scheme must be scrupulously followed. The Court clarified that mere receipt of State pension does not ipso facto entitle a person to Samman Pension under the Central SSS Scheme and accordingly set aside the writ order dated 28-10-2020 while allowing the writ appeal.
Background:
The petition was instituted by a Freedom Fighter who submitted that he participated in Quit India Movement and several other agitations against the British Government and was lodged in Coimbatore Central Prison as a trial prisoner from 01-09-1942 to 16-04-1943. Since State Government Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme was granted, he submitted an application seeking Freedom Fighters Pension under the Central Scheme. The competent authority of the Central Government rejected the same in proceedings dated 27-07-2005.
The Writ Court formed an opinion that once the State Government extended the benefit of Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, then the Central Government has to extend the same, and the eligibility criteria fixed by Central SSS Scheme need not be followed strictly. The Union of India preferred the present appeal mainly on the ground that the applicant was ineligible to avail the Central SSS Scheme, since requisite eligibility criteria had not been complied with.
The appellant submitted that welfare schemes are concessions and must be implemented scrupulously, while the respondent contended that eligibility criteria need not be strictly adopted in each and every case.
Analysis and Decision on Central Freedom Fighters pension to State Pension recipients:
The Court emphasised that welfare schemes are concessions extended to Freedom Fighters recognising their contributions during freedom struggle, and therefore welfare schemes and concessions ought to be implemented scrupulously by following the terms and conditions. The Court highlighted that diluting the terms and conditions of the scheme would result in opening of Pandora’s box and many such ineligible persons will seek benefits, which would result in financial loss to the exchequer.
The Court noted the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jagdamba Devi v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 688, Union of India v. A. Alagam Perumal Kone, (2021) 4 SCC 535, and W.B. Freedom Fighters’ Organisation v. Union of India, (2004) 7 SCC 716, which made it clear that conditions stipulated under Central Government Scheme are to be followed for grant of Central Freedom Fighters Pension. The Court further relied on Jagdamba Devi v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 688, where it was observed that the SSS Scheme is a document-based scheme, and documents required for eligibility are to be produced, duly verified and recommended by the State Government. It was further observed under SSS Scheme that the secondary evidence can be considered only if supported by a valid Non-Availability of Records Certificate (‘NARC’).
The Court noted that the respondent had not produced any acceptable record-based documentary evidence, had not submitted a NARC, and that the co-prisoner certificates furnished were not acceptable. The Court clarified that the State and Central Government schemes are two separate schemes having different provisions and grant of pension by State Government does not entitle a person to Samman Pension under the SSS Scheme. The Court concluded that the Writ Court’s view that eligibility criteria need not be strictly adopted was running counter to the legal principles settled by the Supreme Court of India, and expansion of the scope of scheme is impermissible.
Consequently, the writ order dated 28-10-2020 was set aside and the writ appeal was allowed, with liberty to the respondent to collect required documents and re-present the application for consideration under the SSS Scheme.
[Union of India v. S. Somasundaram, WA No. 806 of 2022, decided on 15-12-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice S.M. Subramaniam
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: R. Sanjay, Central Government Standing Counsel, R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General of India
For the Respondent: C.S. Jeyaprakash for S. Senthil Murugan, Special Government Pleader