Disposed

Varghese Kumarickal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2009WA/749/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal concerned the rejection of an application for freedom fighter's pension due to insufficient documentation. The court directed the Government to reconsider the matter based on new evidence of judicial custody before retirement age, granting time for such assessment.

What did the court decide?

Court directed the Government to reconsider the appellant's petition for freedom fighter's pension by examining the new evidence, including proof of judicial custody, within three months.

Varghese Kumarickal Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930

¶6

WA.No. 749 of 2007(E) -------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.934/2007 Dated 01/02/2007

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

VARGHESE KUMARICKAL,S/O.POULOSE, KUMARICKAL HOUSE,KORATTY P.O,(SOUTH), MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU MS.K.S.CHANDRIKA

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP-B),DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR.

¶15

GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS.K.MEERA

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

J.B.KOSHY, Ag.CJ & V.GIRI, J.

¶18

===========================

¶19

W.A.No.749 of 2007 - E

¶20

===============================

¶21

Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2009.

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Koshy, Ag.CJ.

¶24

Appellant filed an application for freedom fighter's pension. Even though petitioner challenged the same through a writ petition it was dismissed as proper certificate was not produced. Aggrieved by Ext.P8, S.L.P. was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court which was also dismissed as can be seen from Ext.P9. But thereafter, appellant filed Ext.P10 representation along with new document, which is a certificate issued by the Government of Goa. That was rejected only because earlier this Court refused to interfere with the earlier rejection order. Petitioner has now filed Annexure A order issued by Superintendent of Judicial Lock up, Panaji, Goa to show that he was in the judicial custody. In these circumstances, we direct the Government to reconsider the matter, taking into account the new materials produced by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, as the appellant is aged 82. If the petitioner is entitled

¶25

W.A.No.749 of 2007 - E

¶26

¶27

to freedom fighter's pension on the basis of the additional documents produced, it should be granted. We are not expressing any opinion regarding the matter. Untrammelled by any observation made in the impugned judgment, we direct the Government to consider Ext.P10 representation, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

The writ appeal is disposed of as above.

¶29

J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶30

V.GIRI, JUDGE.

¶31

bkn/-

Varghese Kumarickal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varghese Kumarickal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Baliapatam Tile Works Ltd. Vs Kseb

V.Ramachandra Reddiar Vs the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner

Indian Bank Vs Metty Fraancis

Jeothy Abraham Vs Asst.Engineer & Another

Kerala Textiles & Garments Dealers Welf Vs State of Kerala

The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Alathur and Ano Vs M.a.Abdul Amanulla