The Madras High Court recently directed the Union Government to provide pension to a 94-year-old former member of the Indian National Army (INA), who was incarcerated in Rangoon (Myanmar) in 1945. While issuing the order, the court emphasized the need for a harmonious interpretation of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana schemes.
A bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy acknowledged the complexity of cases involving INA members detained in foreign countries. The bench stressed the necessity to interpret the scheme harmoniously in such situations rather than strict adherence to the provided criteria.
In the case at hand, the petitioner, RK Venkatachalam, an INA member and participant in the Indian Independence League in 1943, was arrested during a freedom struggle campaign in Burma. He was kept in Rangoon jail from May 1945 to December 1945.
As he had suffered incarceration for more than six months, he made a claim for Freedom Fighters’ Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana. His incarceration was affirmed by two of his co-prisoners and he also possessed a certificate from a Colonel, who was a member of the Indian National Army Freedom Fighters Pension Committee.
However, the claim was rejected by the Home Ministry in 2018 because his co-prisoners, who certified the imprisonment of the petitioner, did not suffer incarceration for a period of one year as was required under the scheme.
The scheme requires claimants to furnish a certificate from jail authorities, district magistrates, or state government for proof. Alternatively, in the absence of such documentation, individuals can obtain a non-availability of record certificate from relevant authorities, supported by certificates from co-prisoners with at least one year of incarceration.
Against rejection of his claim, Venkatachalam approached the high court and a single-judge bench allowed his plea directing the authorities to disburse his pension.
Subsequently, the order of the single-judge bench was challenged by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in an appeal.
Before the division bench, the Ministry argued that pension eligibility depends on meeting mandatory criteria, emphasizing the non-binding nature of state government approvals upon the central government.
Citing precedents, the MHA stressed the need for necessary documents to support claims. Additionally, it asserted that the high court couldn’t issue directions in matters requiring evidence appreciation.
On the contrary, Venkatachalam argued that the state government had deemed him eligible for a pension and made a corresponding recommendation. He also pointed out that in a similar situation, a coordinate bench of the high court had directed the granting of pension.
The division bench observed that mainland prisoners could provide certificates from jail authorities as proof, but members of the INA, detained in foreign countries, lacked such certificates. The court emphasised that rigidly insisting on the one-year jail term criterion for co-prisoners of the claimant would turn it into a condition of eligibility rather than proof.
“The scheme has to be read harmoniously and in the facts of the present case, where the co-prisoners have suffered a term slightly lesser than one year, the same cannot be put against the first respondent, who is otherwise eligible for pension,” the court observed.
Therefore, while noting that the on-field inquiry conducted by the District Collector had found the petitioner eligible, and the state government had recommended the pension accordingly, court upheld the single judge bench’s order. It, however, modified the order on the arrears’ payment commencement date.
Comments
0 comment