Divorced Daughters Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension On Par With Unmarried Daughters: Madras High Court
The High Court held that a divorced daughter of a freedom fighter cannot be denied Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension merely on account of her marital status, noting that the pension is a recognition of sacrifices made for the country.
The Madras High Court has held that a divorced dependent daughter of a freedom fighter is entitled to receive a pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, at par with an unmarried daughter of a freedom fighter.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the divorced daughter of a deceased freedom fighter seeking the transfer of the freedom fighter pension of her deceased mother into her name. Her claim was rejected solely because she was a divorced daughter.
A Bench comprising Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, while adjudicating the matter, referred to Union of India Vs Khajani Devi, in which the Apex Court, while reviewing an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, had remarked: “the impugned order adopts a progressive and socially constructive approach to give benefits to daughter who was divorced, treating her at parity with the unmarried daughter. We fully agree with this view.”
Reiterating the observations, Justice Lakshminarayanan, accordingly, observed: “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.”
Advocate A.P. Surya Prakasam appeared for the petitioner, while R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General of India, represented the Union Government.
Background
The petitioner is the daughter of a freedom fighter who served in the Indian National Army under Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and suffered imprisonment in Rangoon Jail during the independence struggle.
Her mother also suffered incarceration during the movement and was receiving a pension from both the Central and State Governments until her death at the age of 83.
After securing a divorce from her Singaporean husband due to cruelty, the petitioner returned to India and lived with her mother till her death. She sought the transfer of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme upon her mother's demise.
The State of Tamil Nadu had already been directed to grant her dependent family pension pursuant to orders passed in an earlier writ petition. However, the Union Government rejected her request because the 2014 Revised Policy Guidelines did not include divorced daughters as eligible dependents.
Aggrieved, she approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the rejection letter and declaration of Clause 5.2.5 of the 2014 Guidelines as unconstitutional.
Court’s Observation
The Madras High Court, upon hearing the matter, noted that the only ground for rejection was the petitioner’s marital status and examined whether the exclusion of divorced dependent daughters was legally sustainable.
The Court held that this issue stood conclusively settled in Khajani Devi v. Union of India, where a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that excluding divorced daughters while including unmarried daughters was irrational.
The Supreme Court had dismissed the Union’s SLP, endorsing a progressive and socially constructive approach to give benefits to a daughter who was divorced, treating her at parity with the unmarried daughter.
The Court held that this binding precedent applied squarely, and judicial discipline required following it. The Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, the Court held, “is being granted by the Union of India in recognition of the hardship that had been undergone by freedom fighters during the independence movement.”
The Court also rejected reliance on earlier decisions involving compassionate appointments, noting that those schemes are different in nature and cannot be imported to pensionary benefits designed to honour national service.
Conclusion
Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the rejection order and held that a divorced dependent daughter is entitled to receive a pension under the scheme at par with an unmarried daughter.
The Court directed the State of Tamil Nadu to conduct an inquiry into her dependency and financial condition and forward a report within four weeks, while also directing the Union Government to take all necessary steps to grant the petitioner a pension within eight weeks.
Cause Title: Thillai Lokanathan v. The Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates A.P. Surya Prakasam, N. Abiragan
Respondent: R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General of India