'Read Schemes Harmoniously': Madras HC Directs MHA To Give Pension To 94-Yr-Old Ex-Army Personnel Who Was Incarcerated In Rangoon Jail In 1945

While observing that the schemes in the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana have to be read harmoniously, the Madras High Court recently directed the Union Government to provide pension to a nonagenarian former member of the Indian National Army who was incarcerated in Rangoon (Myanmar) back in 1945. The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that in cases where the persons belonging to the Indian National Army were incarcerated in a foreign country, it would be difficult to strictly adhere to the criterion provided in the scheme and in such cases, the scheme had to be read harmoniously. As per the scheme the primary mode of proving claims was to provide a certificate from the concerned jail authority or district magistrate or state government. In the absence of the same, a person could obtain a non-availability of record certificate from the concerned authorities along with certificates from co-prisoners who had been incarcerated for one year. In the present case, the petitioner, RK Venkatachalam was a member of the Indian National Army and joined the Indian Independence League in 1943 under Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. While undertaking a campaign for freedom struggle in the Burma area, Venkatachalam was arrested by the British Army and was in Rangoon jail from May 1945 to December 1945. Venkatachalam's application for pension was rejected on the ground that his co-prisoners did not suffer incarceration for one year and thus did not fulfill the criterion. When this was challenged before the High Court, a single judge allowed the plea and directed the authorities to disburse the pension amount. The Ministry of Home Affairs thus filed the present appeal challenging the order of the single judge. The Ministry argued that the pension could be granted only if the claims were proved as per the mandatory requirements of the scheme. Though the state government had granted pensions, it was argued that the same would not bind the Central Government. Relying upon precedents, the Ministry argued that the courts have insisted that the claims be supported by requisite documents. It was also argued that the High court could not issue directions in such matters where appreciation of evidence was required. Venkatachalam, on the other hand, argued that the State Government had found him eligible for grant of pension and recommended the same. He also submitted that in similar circumstances, a coordinate bench of the High Court had directed granting pension. The court noted that while mainland prisoners could produce certificate4 from the jail authorities to prove their claims, the members of the INA, who were incarcerated in other countries could not produce such certificates. The court also noted that if insistence was made regarding the certificate of co-prisoners, it would become an eligibility instead of proof. “If the persons who are involved in the struggle, viz., the co-prisoners, were all taken into custody during May 1995 and released in December 1945, strict insistence upon the criteria that co-prisoners should have a proven jail suffering of one year, would become a condition of eligibility rather than a method of proof. Therefore, 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. In the present case, the court noted that the District Collector, who conducted the on-field inquiry was satisfied with the eligibility and the state government had also recommended pension. The court thus opined that the single judge had rightly read the provisions of the scheme harmoniously. The court thus, upheld the order of the single judge with modifications on the date from which the arrears of pension had to be paid and directed the authorities to comply with the order within a period of two months. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan Dy.Solicitor General Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar State Government Pleader for RR2 to 4 Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar for R1 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 73 Case Title: The Under Secretary to Govt v RK Venkatachalam and Others Case No: Writ Appeal No.2169 of 2023Click here to read/download the judgment

'Read Schemes Harmoniously': Madras HC Directs MHA To Give Pension To 94-Yr-Old Ex-Army Personnel Who Was Incarcerated In Rangoon Jail In 1945

Upasana Sajeev

Tags