1976 INSC 0233
                                                    R. R. Dalavai

                                                           Vs

                                              The State of Tamil Nadu

                                          Civil Appeal No. 1116 of 1975

                                  (CJI A.N. Ray, M.H. Beg, Jaswant Singh JJ)

                                                      07.05.1976

                                                     JUDGMENT

RAY, C.J. -

1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated January 21, 1975 of the Madras High
Court.

2. The appellant made an application under Article 226 challenging the power of the Government of
Tamil Nadu to grant of pension to anti-Hindi agitators. The appellant further challenged the power
of the State to make payment from the Consolidated Fund of the State Exchequer.

3. Article 351 of the Constitution says that it shall be the duty of the Union Government to promote
the spread of the Hindi language to develop so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all
the elements of the composite culture of our country. The appellant contended that the spirit and
letter of Article 351 is violated by the pension scheme of the Tamil Nadu State. The appellant said
that the agitators who brought about violence, broke the law and were honored by the pension
scheme of the State.

4. The High Court said that the State Legislature has control over purse and that in the view of the
State Legislature the agitators against Hindi fought for a cause and, therefore, those who are eligible
should be granted pension. The High Court found that it a scheme is provided which is not
destructive of the directive principles but aimed at ameliorating those who the legislature thought
deserve that treatment Article 351 was not violated.

5. The High Court found that because of Appropriation Act No. 38 of 1974 it could not be said that
payment was illegal.

6. In our opinion the pension scheme formulated by the Tamil Nadu Government contains the vice
of disintegration and fomenting fissiparous tendencies. If any State will be engaged in exciting
emotion against Hindi or any other language such provision has to be nipped in the bud because
these are anti-national and anti-democratic tendencies.

7. The 'Madras Budget Manual' 4th Edition was referred to by the appellant. The appropriation in
the present case shows that a fund was kept apart to meet the pension scheme. There is no legislative
sanction for such pension scheme. The Government by an executive order could not authorise
payment of pension scheme. The appellant is right in his contention that the pension scheme is
unconstitutional and the budget sanction is equally unconstitutional.
8. For these reasons the judgment of the High Court is set aside.

9. A mandamus will go directing the respondent to forbear from implementing the pension scheme.
The State will be competent to claim refund of moneys illegally and unconstitutionally paid. The
appellant is entitled to costs to be paid by the State.

</html