- (1.) Substitution allowed.
(2.) Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
(3.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Madras, made on 3-1-1996 in Writ Petition No. 19957/94. The High Court, on appreciation of evidence, has observed in paragrpah 9 of the judgment as under: "I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner was sanctioned freedom fighters pension by the State Government. Five prominent Freedom Fighters have given certificates who were eligible to give such certificates under the very scheme and nothing is stated to discredit these certificates. In view of the certificates produced by the petitioner though the records for the relevant period of 1942-43 were not available since they were destroyed, the certificates given by the prominent freedom fighters are to be accepted. Added to this, the claim of the petitioner also finds place in the book published by the Government of Tamil Nadu and it further supports the claim of the petitioner that he suffered imprisonment for a period of two months in Alipuram Jail. The report of the Collector of Madurai that no record as to arrest warrant is available or that there is no material to show that the arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner cannot be taken as conclusive because there is nothing to show that as to what is the basis for such a statement. If it were to be a certificate issued by the authorities or the Court which had issued arrest a warrant that could have been a different matter. At any rate, even the same Collector recommended for the sanction of Central Pension to the petitioner. Even on earlier occasion, the State Government had recommended for grant of Central Freedom Fighters Pension to the petitioner as can be seen from the letter dated 22-1-1982 addressed to the first respondent. Thus, having regard to overall circumstances of the case and the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to grant of pension under the SSS Pension Scheme of the Central Government. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been struggling to get pension from 14-12-1981 and the petitioner made an application to the first respondent for the third time and in view of the fact that this Court remanded the case of the first respondent and the first respondent did not consider the claim of the petitioner, having regard to the guidelines and directions given in Thangavela v. The Government of India (1994 (1) MLJ 622), I do not think that it is appropriate to direct the first respondent again to consider the case of the petitioner. In view of the materials placed on record, the petitioner is entitled to get the pension sought for." ;