HC rejects under-age norm; orders pension to freedom fighter

The Madras High Court bench here today upheld a single judge's order directing grant of pension to a freedom fighter who was jailed as a 15-year old boy in 1942, rejecting the government's contention of under-age.
The court ruled that the prime issue to be considered was whether a person was jailed for taking part in the freedom struggle and once that was settled the pension should be paid.
Dismissing an appeal by Madurai District Collector L Subramanian seeking setting aside of the single judge's order, a division bench, comprising Justice S.Tamilvanan and Justice V.S.Ravi, ordered him to grant the pension to Dhanushkodi, who was imprisoned in Karnataka for participating in the Quit India Movement in 1942 when he was 15, within eight weeks.

The appeal challenged the August 6, 2014 order of Justice T.S.Sivagnanam on the ground that the age of Danushkodi was 15 when he was in prison and hence he was not entitled to get the State Government Freedom Fighters Pension as per guidelines.
The division bench agreed with the single judge's view that the primordial factor to be considered is whether the petitioner was imprisoned on account of the fact that he participated in the freedom struggle and refused to set aside the judgement.
Justice Sivagnanam, allowing the petition by Dhanushkodi of the district, had said the petitioner's claim that he was in jail had been established by the production of the certificate by a co-prisoner. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that since the petitioner did not complete 18 years age at the time of imprisonment, the freedom fighter pension cannot be granted.

The prime issues to be proved are the fact of imprisonment and whether the person so imprisoned fought for the freedom of the country. Once these criteria were established, the age criteria apparently had no norms, he had ruled.
Though the order was passed in August last, the appeal was filed in November with a plea to condone the delay of 52 days on the ground that the file had been misplaced.
The division bench dismissed the appeal as well as the condone delay application.