Freedom Fighter's Pension Cannot Be Said To Be "Income" For Denying Benefit Of Family Pension: Madras High Court

Justice B Pugalendhi ordered thus:

The respondents are directed to grant family pension to the petitioner arising out of the state government civil service of the petitioner's deceased mother in addition to the freedom fighters pension within a period of eight weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

The court also observed that Freedom Fighter's pension was given to honour the contributions and sacrifices of the freedom fighters and therefore it could not be brought under the category of income.

The main objective of the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme (Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana) is to honour the contribution and the sacrifices of the freedom fighters to the nation. Through this scheme monthly pension is provided to pensioners so that they can lead their life with respect. This scheme is basically a token of respect for the contribution of freedom fighters in the national freedom struggle.

In the present case a woman, S Jeevalakshmi was challenging the order passed by Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Principal Accountant General, cancelling the sanction of family pension to the petitioner. The petitioner was an unmarried woman and the daughter of a Freedom fighter. Her father Late S.T.Sivasamy was granted Freedom Fighter's family pension. The petitioner's mother was working as a School Assistant.

After her mother's demise, the petitioner's father was receiving the family pension in addition to the Freedom fighter's pension. After he passed away, the petitioner, being the legal heir was granted Freedom Fighter's pension. The family pension, however, was not drawn by the petitioner or her siblings.

Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Government ordered for family pension to unmarried daughters above 25 years on the condition that their income should not exceed Rs.2,550/- month and which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.7,850/-. The petitioner made an application for a family pension and was granted the same. However, the Senior Accounts Officer directed the Treasury Officer to cancel the sanction of family pension observing that the petitioner was not eligible for drawing family pension since she was already receiving the Freedom fighter's pension.

The petitioner contended that the pension of a freedom fighter cannot be termed as income and would not disentitle her from receiving the other family pension arising out of her mother's service. This position was already upheld by the Supreme court in its judgments.

The respondents relied on two government orders, G.O(Ms)No.325 Finance (Pension) Department dated 28.11.2011 and G.O(Ms)No.337 Finance (PM Cell) Department dated 14.11.2017 and submitted that an unmarried daughter of a pensioner was entitled to family pension provided her monthly income does not exceed Rs. 7,850/-. It was also clarified by the government that monthly income includes all income. All income would, therefore include the freedom figther's pension also. Thus, according to the respondents, since the petitioner is already receiving a sum of Rs.13,390/- as Freedom Fighter's Pension, the petitioner is not eligible for a family pension arising out of her mother's employment. The respondent also contended that another government order G.O.Ms.No.290 Public (Ex-Servicemen) Department dated 05.04.2017 does not permit granting of dual pension.

The court referred to the judgements of the Supreme court and the Madras High Court where the courts have continuously reiterated that the payment of Freedom Fighter's pension was to honour their sacrifices and to mitigate their sufferings. In State of Orissa Vs. Choudhuri Nayak (2010) 8 SCC 796, the Supreme Court had even directed the authorities to treat the applicants with respect and not to see it as a routine scheme for payment of compensation. The Madras High Court in K.Arumugam Vs the Secretary to Government (2006) had also held that freedom fighter's pension cannot be termed as income as it was an honour given to the freedom fighters.

In view of the existing precedents, the court was satisfied that the pension received by the Petitioner arising out of the Freedom Fighter's pension could not be taken as an income to deny her the family pension arising out of her mother's services. Thus, the reasons given by the respondents for denying the pension could not be sustained in the eye of the law.

Case Title: S.Jeevalakshmi v. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) and others

Case No: W.P(MD)No.800 of 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 321

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Mohmmed Imran, for M/s.Ajmal Associates

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.Gunasekaran (R1-2), Mr.S.Saji Bino, Special Government Pleader (R3)

Click here to read/download the judgment