Grant Of State Pension To Freedom Fighter Does Not Automatically Result In Extension of Central Pension: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that the grant of a state pension to a freedom fighter would not automatically result in the extension of a central pension to the pensioner. The court added that for granting the Central Government Pension Scheme, the conditions stipulated in the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (SSS Scheme) had to be followed. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan set aside an order of the single judge, which held that once the state government has extended the benefit of the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, the central government has to extend the same, and that the eligibility criteria fixed by the central government need not be followed strictly. “It is not in dispute that State Government Freedom Fighters pension scheme has been extended to the respondent. But there is no automatic extension of Central Government Pension scheme, since the conditions are specifically stipulated under the SSS Scheme. Thus, for grant of Central pension, the Central Government scheme is to be followed,” the court observed. The court was hearing an appeal by the central government against an order of a single judge directing it to extend freedom fighters' pension to a man. It was submitted that the freedom fighter had participated in the freedom struggle in Coimbatore District against the British Government and had also participated in the Quit India Movement. It was submitted that the freedom fighter was also lodged in the Coimbatore Central Prison as trial prisoner from 1942 to 1943. Since the state government was granting him a freedom fighter's pension, he submitted an application to the Central Government, which was rejected. He approached the High Court against this order, and the single judge directed the Union Government to grant the same. Against this, the Government had preferred the appeal. The government submitted that the petitioner freedom fighter was ineligible to avail the Central Freedom Fighters Pension scheme, since the requisite eligibility criteria had not been complied with. It was argued that the writ court had not considered the eligibility criteria and observed that the criteria need not be strictly adopted. The court observed that the pension scheme was a welfare scheme by the government for the benfit of freedom fighters. The court added that it was a concession extended to the freedom fighters for recognising their contributions during the freedom struggle. The court added that the High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, could not expand the scope of policy decisions. “Welfare scheme is a concession extended to Freedom Fighters recognising their contributions during freedom struggle. Therefore, welfare schemes and concessions ought to be implemented scrupulously by following the terms and conditions. High Court in exercise of powers of judicial review cannot expand the scope of the policy decisions, especially in the matter of grant of pension to Freedom Fighters or to any other persons under Special Schemes,” the court said. The court added that if it were to dilute the conditions of the pension, it would open a pandoras box, where ineligible persons would seek benefits, causing loss to the exchequer. “In the event of diluting the terms and conditions of the scheme, it will result in opening of Pandora's box and many such ineligible persons will seek benefits under the scheme, which would result in financial loss to the exchequer. Therefore, welfare schemes are to be implemented scrupulously in terms and conditions as stipulated,” the court added. In the present case, the court noted that the freedom fighter had not produced the required documents. The court thus directed the respondents to collect the required documents and re-present the application. The court also directed the authorities to consider the application. Counsel for Appellant: Mr. R. Sanjay, Central Government Standing Counsel For Mr. R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General Of India Counsel for Respondents: Mr. C.S. Jeyaprakash, Mr. S. Senthil Murugan, Special Government Pleader Case Title: The Government of India v. S Somasundaram and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 495 Case No: WA No. 806 of 2022 Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Grant Of State Pension To Freedom Fighter Does Not Automatically Result In Extension of Central Pension: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags