Disposed

Alikunju v. Union of India and Others

Kerala HC15 Nov 2012WP(C)/17396/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a freedom fighter, filed a writ petition regarding denial of Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension due to state inaction and application errors. Court directed fresh application submission and mandatory timelines for state recommendation and central consideration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh application; State Government to decide within three months; Central Government to decide within two months if recommended.

Alikunju Vs Union of India and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/24TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 17396 of 2010 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

N.V.ALIKUNJU, NANETH HOUSE, EDAVOOR PO, KOOVAPPADY (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KERALA PIN 683 544.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM SRI.P.ALI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY,FREEDOM FIGHETERS DIVISION MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, IST FLOOR LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110003.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R2, 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 17396 of 2010 (Y)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

----------

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.7.1981 ALONG WITH MANDATORY DOCUMENTS.

¶21

EXT.P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.2.87.

¶22

EXT.P3. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 8.02.1996

¶23

EXT.P4. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GOVT. GAZETTE DATED 14.03.1967.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No. 17396 of 2010

¶29

Dated this the 15^th day of November 2012

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner, who claims to be a freedom fighter, has submitted Ext.P1 application for the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension as per the scheme formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs. According to him, he was proclaimed as an offender and he, as part of the freedom struggle, remained underground for more than six months as provided under clause 2.3 of Ext.R1 scheme. Though Ext.P1 application was filed and a recommendation was made by the District Collector, according to the petitioner the State Government have not taken any steps to consider his application and sent a positive report to the Central Government. It is an admitted fact that there had been some mistakes in Ext.P1 application and in the place of “suffering struggle in underground”, it was filled up with “in prison”. It seems that by Ext.P2, the Central Government had informed the petitioner that his claim has not been recommended by the State Government. According to the petitioner, he is eligible for getting the said pension and it is only

¶32

W.P.C.No.17396/2012

¶33

¶34

on account of the inaction on the part of the State Government in not recommending his name for getting pension that there is delay in the matter.

¶35

1^st respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia relying upon the scheme which they have produced as Ext.R1. But, the Government of Kerala, by Ext.R2 did not recommend the case of the petitioner for pension which resulted in non-granting of the pension. Ext.R3 is the letter issued by the Principal Secretary to Government of Kerala to the Ministry of Home Affairs stating that by virtue of judgment in O.P.No.38273/2001 (F), the State Government is looking into the matter afresh and if there are indications to show that the petitioner is eligible for Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension, proper recommendation can be made.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there are certain mistakes in Ext.P1 application and he is in possession of sufficient documents to prove his underground suffering for the stipulated period as per Ext.R1 scheme. In that event, I am of the view that a fresh consideration of the matter is

¶38

W.P.C.No.17396/2012

¶39

¶40

required to be made and therefore taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been fighting for pension for the last several years, the writ petition is disposed as follows:

¶41

i) Petitioner shall submit a fresh application to the State Government for the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension as per the required format along with necessary documents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

ii) The State Government shall consider and pass appropriate orders in the said application with intimation to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application.

¶43

iii) If the State Government recommends the award of pension in favour of the petitioner, the 1^st respondent shall consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of the said recommendation.

¶44

(sd/-)

¶45

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶46

jsr //True Copy//

¶47

PA to Judge

¶48

W.P.C.No.17396/2012 4

¶49

W.P.C.No.17396/2012 5

¶50

W.P.C.No.17396/2012 6

Alikunju v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alikunju v. Union of India and Others

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

Raveendran Nair Vs K.S.E.B.

United Spirits Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner and Anr.

A.Yesodharan Vs Corporation of Tvm

Abraham C.C. Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

Raju.R Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

Viswanathan Vs District Collector