Chennai: A 95-year-old freedom fighter is all set to get his central pension, nearly 41 years later. The Madras high court has upheld the order of a single judge, which has directed the Union government to sanction the Swathanthratha Sainik Samman Pension to freedom fighter M Rajagopal from October 1973.
A division bench comprising of Acting chief justice S K Agnihotri and Justice K Ravichandrabaabu dismissed the appeal filed by the Union government against a single judge order dated October 1, 2012.
Rajagopal applied for state freedom fighters pension based on the INA certificate. The state government sanctioned the pension from 1968. It also issued ‘Thamarapattayam’ to him during the silver jubilee celebration of Indian Independence in 1973, in recognition of his service rendered to the nation as a freedom fighter. It also recommended for central pension. He applied for central pension with necessary certificates but his requests were rejected by the central government from 1979 on the ground that he has not proved six months imprisonment. He approached the Madras high court and a single judge directed the union government to sanction pension to him. Against this, the Central government filed the present appeal.
The bench said the petitioner’s status as INA personnel was not disputed by the Union government. The certificate issued by All India INA committee issued in his favour was not questioned or doubted by the government. Apart from that, two co-prisoners issued certificates stating that he was imprisoned with them for six months. These two co-prisoners were also elderly persons and could be at the same age group of the petitioner. Therefore, the minor discrepancy of naming the camps in their respective certificates cannot be taken as a serious lapse or construed that their statement was not genuine.
On the other hand, they have specifically named the petitioner and stated that he was their co-prisoner. Both of them were recipients of INA pension from central government. “Such being the case, we wonder as to why those certificates were not accepted”, the bench added and upheld the order of the single judge.
