Can't Distinguish Between Unmarried Daughters & Divorced Daughters While Granting Freedom Fighters Pension: Madras High Court

Justice V Lakshminarayanan adopted the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Khajani Devi, where the Supreme Court had held that the special family pension and the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme were intended to honour the valour of uniformed people who laid down their lives or suffered for the cause of the country. The Supreme Court had held that any demeaning interpretation of the scheme to deprive the unsung heroes of the country of benefits meant to ensure a life of dignity to their dependents.

Following the above view of the Supreme Court, the court observed as under,

“When the Supreme Court has spoken, Judicial discipline requires that I adopt the same view and not attempt to distinguish the same, as sought to be done by the learned Deputy Solicitor General. Since, the view of Khajani Devi's case has been approved by the Supreme Court, and as the circumstances in that case are similar to the case on hand, I am of the view that the writ petition should succeed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a freedom fighter's daughter seeking to transfer the pension from her deceased mother's account to her account. The court was informed that the woman's father Shanmuga Thevar was a freedom fighter from Burma who had joined the Indian National Army in Burma led by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. It was submitted that the petitioner's father was imprisoned in Rangoon Jail for 6 months. After his release, the family had been reduced to impoverished circumstances and thus, instead of residing in Burma, they shifted their resident to India.

It was submitted that after the father's demise, the petitioner's mother was granted a pension by the State as well as the Central Government. Now, after the mother's demise, the petitioner had approached the court to transfer the pension to her account.

The court was also informed that the petitioner had married a Singapore citizen and had two children from the marriage. However, due to the cruelty at the hands of the husband, she sought a divorce, and came back to the country, and the children's custody was with the husband. She submitted that she had been residing with her mother till her death.

The petitioner also submitted that she had also sought a pension from the State of Tamil Nadu, and the same was allowed by way of a court order, wherein the court had remarked that she was eligible for pension.

The Central Government, however, objected to the plea and argued that to be eligible as a dependant, the daughter had to satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it had to be shown that she did not have any independent source of income, and secondly, she must not be married. In the present case, the Deputy Solicitor General argued that the petitioner did not have any right to seek a pension as she was not covered under the scope of the scheme.

The court noted that in Khajani Devi's case also, the petitioner was the daughter of a freedom fighter and the Supreme Court had allowed her to get the freedom fighter's pension as her father's dependent.

Though the Deputy Solicitor General placed reliance on some other cases, the court noted that the same dealt with compassionate appointments and it could not be compared with the freedom fighters' pension.

“The pension is being granted by the Union of India in recognition of the hardship that had been undergone by freedom fighters during the independence movement. To compare such hardship with compassionate appointment, in my view, would not be appropriate,” the court said.

Thus, noting that the woman was entitled to a pension from the date of her application, the court directed the authorities to do the needful within 8 weeks. The court directed the Union Government to forward the papers to the State of Tamil Nadu, which shall conduct an enquiry to ascertain whether the petitioner was in an impoverished circumstance and whether she was dependent on her parents during their lifetime. On receipt of the report, the court directed the central government to pass appropriate orders.

Counsel for Petitioner: A.P.Surya Prakasam, N. Abiragan

Counsel for Respondents: M/s. R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General Of India

Case Title: Thillai Lokanathan v. The Deputy Secretary and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 405

Case No: WP No. 29353 of 2025