N. GANAPATHY @ N. RAMANATHAN ALSO KNOWN AS N. KANAPATHY Vs. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC (P.P.II) DEPARTMENT, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is by an ex -soldier of Indian National Army (hereinafter referred to as 'I.N.A'). He claims that he joined I.N.A. in 1943 at Batu Pahat, Malaya as it then was, and was trained at Seletar Camp, Singapore and later on posted as Sepoy in the 8th Guerilla Regiment stationed at Ipoh Camp, Malaya. He claims to have been in the active service in the war front and further claims to have been detained at Ipoh as prisoner of war by the Britishers. He submitted his application to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (P.P.II) Department and in support of his application, filed few documents including the certificate issued by the All India I.N.A. Committee. He also submitted his passport, which was dated 15.3.1943, his two photographs along with the fellow soldiers, a certificate given by one M. Chinnakannu, who himself was a soldier of the Indian National Army and detained by the British army along with the petitioner. He also submitted an identity card of the Indian Independence League, Batu Pahat Camp dated 10.5.1942.

(2.) On the basis of the above documents, the petitioner claimed the pension meant for freedom fighters. His further case is that his case is recommended by the Collector who had conducted the enquiry as also the police officers investigated about his credentials. Further, his case seems to have been rejected by the order dated 20.10.1994. He has, therefore, approached this Court for a writ of mandamus to issue him the pension. He has, along with the writ petition, filed all those documents which have been produced before the Deputy Secretary to the Government, including the last communication dated 20.10.1994 bearing No.63483/A -1/91 -5, Public (Political Pension -II) Department, Secretariat.

(3.) In support of his arguments, the learned counsel points out that all the persons who served in the Indian National Army and who were the prisoners of war of the British Army are entitled to the Freedom Fighters Pension. The learned counsel points out that there was ample evidence in this case to suggest that the petitioner was a genuine freedom fighter as he was a soldier and had actually been a prisoner of war while he was in the active service of I.N.A. The learned counsel further points out that all this evidence has been ignored in the aforementioned communication dated 20.10.1994 and the rejection seems to be on the fanciful grounds that the card submitted by the petitioner bore some corrections and over -writings, and that the certificate issued by the All India I.N.A. Committee bearing No.8/2/9830/EMP dated 11.1.1971 having been solely based on that card could not be honoured and could not be held to be a valid document.