The Madras High Court recently said that it is inappropriate to equate freedom fighters' pension with government schemes for compassionate employment.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan made the observation while overturning the Central government's refusal to transfer a deceased freedom fighter's pension to the account of his daughter (petitioner).

To support the argument that divorced daughters are not entitled to the freedom fighters' pension awarded to their parents, the government had relied on certain precedents.

However, the Court noted that those precedents only related to compassionate employment schemes and not freedom fighters' pension.

The Court opined that the two cannot be compared.

"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," it held.

The Court proceeded to reject the Centre's argument that divorced women are not entitled to their parents' freedom fighter's pension or that only unmarried, dependent daughters can claim such an entitlement.

Justice Lakshminarayanan noted that the Supreme Court in 2019 had approved a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling that had held that the situation of unmarried daughters is comparable to divorced women who are dependent on their parents.

"The Supreme Court has categorically held that, the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is a progressive and socially constructive approach, which gives benefits to the divorced daughters and has treated them on par with unmarried daughters," the judge pointed out.

He added that he is bound to follow the Supreme Court's ruling in the matter.

"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," the High Court said while granting relief to the petitioner.

The Court was dealing with a plea by the daughter of Shanmuga Thevar, a freedom fighter who fought for India's independence and against British colonialism in Burma as part of the Indian National Army led by Subhash Chandra Bose.

He was arrested by the British forces and imprisoned in Burma's Rangoon Jail for six months. By the time he was released from jail, his family had been reduced to impoverished circumstances, the Court noted.

The family eventually shifted from Burma to India. Both the Central government and the Tamil Nadu government agreed to give his family a freedom fighter's pension. Thevar's wife received this pension until her death at the age of 85 years.

After her mother's death, Thevar's daughter (petitioner) sought the transfer of such pension given under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (Central government scheme) to her account.

Notably, the petitioner had married during her mother's lifetime and had later gotten divorced after suffering cruelty at the hands of her husband. She said that she was dependent on her mother after the divorce and that they resided together until the mother's death.

She also claimed that she was suffering from acute health problems and had no financial support from any other source.

In July this year, the Centre denied her request for the transfer of pension, prompting her to move the High Court for relief.

The Central government argued that there was a specific clause in revised guidelines issued by the Union Home Ministry in 2014, which said that widowed or divorced daughters are not entitled to the pension awarded under the 1980 scheme.

Thevar's daughter challenged this clause as well before the High Court, and maintained that she was entitled to the pension amount.

On October 22, the Court came to her aid.

“The petitioner is entitled to pension from the date of her application, i.e., from 27.01.2023. The respondents are granted eight weeks time to do the needful," it said.

It also noted that another single-judge Bench of the Court had has year passed a similar ruling that the petitioner is entitled to get pension from the State.

"She requires that support not because of her individual capacity but in recognition of the sacrifices made by both parents. Her father suffered incarceration for more than 6 months. Her mother was suffered incarceration for a month. They both suffered incarceration for the cause of this country and while fighting against the British to obtain freedom in this country. There could be no better eligible person than the petitioner herein," the Court had noted at the time, in the December 2024 ruling.

Advocates AP Surya Prakasam and N Abiragan represented the petitioner.

Deputy Solicitor General of India R Rajesh Vivekananthan appeared for the Central government.

[Read Judgment]