Many born after 1947 may not be aware of independence struggle; we are enjoying benefits of freedom and some are misusing it: Madras High Court

Many in our country born after 1947 may not be even aware of the Indian freedom struggle though they enjoy benefits of the same and also misuse it, the Madras High Court recently observed (K Mariammal v. Union of India and ors). .Justice S Vaidynathan made the observation while granting relief to a 73-year old widow of a freedom fighter who was denied the benefits of a freedom fighter pension scheme..The Court allowed the plea challenging an order of the Special Deputy Collector, Social Security Scheme, Coimbatore passed last year. .The said order stood in the way of extending the benefits of a Central government freedom fighter pension scheme to the widow of one, C Kanniah. ."Many of us who were born after 1947 may not be aware as to how the struggle for independence took place and we are enjoying the benefits of freedom and some are misusing it," the Court remarked while passing the order. .The Court noted that there was no dispute that Kanniah was a freedom fighter. A letter dated May 5, 1961 by the All India INA committee certified that Kanniah was a member of the Indian National Army and a political sufferer. He is, therefore, entitled to all the concessions allowed to other political sufferers, the Court noted. .The Court further observed that Kanniah had received the benefit of the Tamil Nadu State Government Freedom Fighter's Pension. After Kanniah's demise in 1988, his wife, Mariammal, was receiving the State government's Freedom Fighter's Pension, the Court was told..While so, the Central government introduced a family pension scheme i.e. the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme in 1980. As per guidelines framed under the Scheme, as on April 1, 2014, no pension was to be sanctioned in the name of the freedom fighter after his/her death even if his/her matter was under examination,. .The scheme also entailed that no life time arrears or dependent pension shall be sanctioned to the freedom fighter's spouse/daughter after the death of the freedom fighter, the Court was told. .To examine the effect of this guideline, the Court took note of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's March 2020 ruling in Chand Kaur vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs wherein it was observed that this provision was mainly concerned with sanctioning of pension in the name of a freedom fighter after his or her death..In the case at hand, however, the Court observed that the widow was already receiving the freedom fighter's pension from the State. This would indicate that the eligibility criteria to receive the pension has been fulfilled. .It was also noted that the main contention of the authorities was that the widow's husband had not mentioned his dependents when he applied for the pension. Justice Vaidyanathan opined that such technical objections should not stand in the way of granting the widow the pension. ."This Court is of the view that, it is only a technical objection, more so, when the benefits of Freedom Fighter's Pension have been extended to the Petitioner by the State Government ... Extension of pension to the dependent after the demise of the freedom fighter itself is an ample proof that, the eligibility criteria to receive pension has been fulfilled. In the case on hand, when the freedom fighter has been recognized and when the Petitioner herein has been recognized as his spouse, standing on technicalities that, no Application has been forwarded by the State Government to the Central Government, will not serve the purpose. Illegality cannot be condoned, but irregularity can be condoned and benefits can be extended. The object of 1980 Pension Scheme is to benefit the kith and kin of freedom fighters. Mere contradictions and discrepancies may not be material to deprive pension", the order stated..Striking an empathetic note, the Judge added that the authorities needed to appreciate that the widow is now 73 years and that memory may fail with age leaving older persons unable to take decisions. ."Due to old age, the Petitioner may not be in a position to read and understand the guidelines framed in the Pension Scheme. Without requisite documents, the State Government would not have extended pension to the Petitioner. It is an admitted fact that, the Petitioner is drawing State Government Freedom Fighter's Pension after her husband's demise. Merely standing on technicalities, the State Government cannot reject the request of the Petitioner", the Court said..The Court proceeded to hold that the Special Deputy Collector's order was not sustainable. The Court was told that the widow is willing to make an application seeking sanction to avail the benefits of the Central government's pension scheme. The State was, therefore, asked to forward the widow's request to the Central government within a month after the receipt of the order. "Taking note of the factual situation, the Central Government is expected to extend the benefits of 1980 Pension Scheme to the Petitioner, in a broader perspective," the Court said.