Disposed

Koyadan Meenakshi v. Union of India

Kerala HC13 Aug 2009WP(C)/23155/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the delay in processing a pension application under the Swathantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme by an unmarried daughter. The Court directed the authorities to process the claim in light of the recognition of the freedom movement.

What did the court decide?

The State Government was directed to conduct enquiries and forward recommendations to the Central Government within four months. The Union of India was directed to take a decision on eligibility withi

Koyadan Meenakshi Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 23155 of 2009(L) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

KUM.KOYADAN MEENAKSHI, D/O.PAYYADAKKAN NARAYANAN NAMBIAR,KANHILERI P.O., CHERIKODE,SREEKANDAPURAM,KANNUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,NEW DELHI.

¶13

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,NEW DELHI.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP.B) DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.GIRI, J.

¶18

W.P.(C).No.23155 of 2009

¶19

Dated this the 13^th day of August, 2009.

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner, an unmarried daughter of one Payyadakkan Narayanan Nambiar, who is claimed to have been a freedom fighter, is aggrieved by the delay on the part of further processing of the application under the Swathantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme {hereinafter referred to as the ' Central Scheme '}.

¶22

Ext.P1 shows that the petitioner's father was a prisoner in the Central Jail prison in connection with S.C.No.21/47. Ext.P2 shows that the State Government had sanctioned freedom fighters' pension to the petitioner's father. Later, the petitioner had applied for pension as an unmarried daughter of her father under the Central Scheme, but this had been rejected under

¶23

W.P.(C).No.23155 of 2009

¶24

:: 2 ::

¶25

Ext.P4 that Kavumbayi struggle, in which the petitioner's father had reportedly participated, was not then recognized by the Union Government as part of the National Freedom Movement for the purpose of pension under the Central Scheme. But later as per Ext.P5, Kavumbayi movement was also recognized as part of the freedom movement. By the time, the petitioner's father had passed away and therefore, the petitioner had again made an application as an unmarried daughter of the freedom fighter for pension under the Central Scheme. The application was forwarded to the State Government as per Ext.P7 as early as 4.8.1999. But nothing has been heard thereafter. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

¶26

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 3^rd respondent to recommend the case of petitioner for sanction of

¶27

W.P.(C).No.23155 of 2009

¶28

:: 3 ::

¶29

Swathantra Sainik Samman Pension to the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P7 proceedings.

¶30

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to sanction and disburse the Swathantra Sainik Samman Pension to the petitioner with arrears from the date of application.

¶31

iii) grant the petitioner such other and further reliefs which this Honourable Court deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case including the cost.”

¶32

Since Kavumbayi struggle is now

¶33

recognized as part of the National Freedom and the application filed by the petitioner as the unmarried daughter of her father has been forwarded to the State Government several years ago, the State Government shall conduct appropriate enquiries with regard to the petitioner's claim and forward their recommendations to the Central Government

¶34

W.P.(C).No.23155 of 2009

¶35

:: 4 ::

¶36

within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

Thereupon, the 1^st respondent shall

¶38

take a decision on the petitioner's eligibility as an unmarried daughter of a freedom fighter in the matter of grant of pension under the Central Scheme, within three months thereafter, untrammelled by Ext.P4.

¶39

Writ petition is disposed of as

¶40

above.

¶41

Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE

¶42

sk/

¶43

//true copy//

¶44

P.S. to Judge

Koyadan Meenakshi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koyadan Meenakshi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Rao Jayachandran Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Baburaj K. Vs State of Kerala

Devadas Sukumaran Vs the Corporate Manager and Others

Renjith Reghunath Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Theresa Junee Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Padmavathi Vs Union of India & Others