The petitioner, wife of a freedom fighter, challenged the date of pension sanction claiming it should be from 1980. The High Court held that the matter was covered by a Supreme Court judgment directing pension payment only from the date of sanction, thus dismissing the petition.
The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/9TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
WP(C).No. 4315 of 2010 (L)
PETITIONER(S):
LAKSHMI PARAMESWARAN, W/O.LATE A.V.PARAMESWARAN, ARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NORTH ARYAD.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHEESH
RESPONDENT(S):
UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS' DIVISION, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-110 003.
BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, (SENIOR PANNEL COUNSEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MJL
WP(C).No. 4315 of 2010 (L)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXT.P1 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23-2-1972 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S LATE HUSBAND TO THE RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-10-1996 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P.NO.16579/1996 |
| EXT.P3 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-4-1997 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S LATE HUSBAND |
| EXT.P4 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SANCTION OF SSS PENSION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 25-1-1999 |
| EXT.P5 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 25-2-1999 |
| EXT.P6 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-8-2003 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P.NO.18547/1999. |
| EXT.P7 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 11-3-2004. |
| EXT.P8 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18-5-2005 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.10812/2004 |
| EXT.P9 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-1-2006 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.2569/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. |
| EXT.P10 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10-2-2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S LATE HUSBAND, TO THE RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P11 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24-3-2009 PSSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.30375/2007 |
| EXT.P12 |
: |
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.52/CC/K/87/2007-FF(SZ) DATED 31-7-2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. |
MJL
WP(C).No. 4315 of 2010 (L)
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.R1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE SWATANTRATA SAINIK SAMMAN PENSION SCHEME, 1980.
/TRUE COPY/
P A TO JUDGE
MJL
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
W.P.(C).NO.4315/2010
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the wife of a freedom fighter who was granted Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension by the Central Government as per Exhibit P12, but from the date of order her claim is that, the pension should be sanctioned from 01/08/1980, the date on which Swatantrata Sainik Samman pension scheme had come into effect.
In that view of the matter, I do not think that a
W.P.(C).NO.4315/2010 2
different view can be taken and therefore there is no ground
to interfere with Ext.P12 order.
Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/ - A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE
MJL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim for backdated pension sanction from the date of scheme inception is maintainable when the Supreme Court held pension payable only from date of sanction
Whether the High Court order sanctioning pension from a later date can be interfered with
Whether the "Kaushalaya Devi" Supreme Court judgment precludes this claim for retroactive application
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lakshmi Parameswaran
Union of India
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
