Disposed

Puthussery Parvathy v. the Union of India & Others

Kerala HC30 May 2016WP(C)/3945/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, widow of a freedom fighter, challenged the rejection of her dependent family pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The court held the State failed to issue a Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC) as per the scheme. Petitioner must submit corrected age details and documents; the State must issue NARC for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Ext P8 quashed; petitioner to submit corrected age details and documents; State to issue NARC after inquiries; Central Government to reconsider application within two months.

Puthussery Parvathy Vs the Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3945 of 2011 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PUTHUSSERY PARVATHY, W/O.LATE KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 82, PAYYAVOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, PIN-670 633.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.M.A.FIROZ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (FFP DIVISION), LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-110 003.

¶11

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP.A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670 001.

¶13

R,R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.K.RAZIYA, CGC R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R, BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BABY THOMAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R BY SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rvs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 3945 of 2011 (P)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT	P1 COPY OF T PETITIONE	HE A R'S H	PPLICATION USBAND.	DATED 03/04/1998 FILED BY THE
EXHIBIT	P2 COPY OF 16/04/199 DISTRICT	THE 9 AD COLLE	COMMUNICATI DRESSED TO CTOR.	ON NO.K.DIS.21232/98/M5 DATED THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE
EXHIBIT	P3 COPY OF SUPERINTE	TH NDENT	E JAIL , CENTRAL	CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE JAIL, KANNUR.
EXHIBIT	P4 COPY OF 31/07/199	GOVT 9.	. LETTER	NO.41973/FFP.A2/99/GAD DATED
EXHIBIT	P5 COPY OF 35810/200	THE 9 OF	JUDGMENT THIS HONOU	DATED 18/02/2010 IN WP(C) NO RABLE COURT
EXHIBIT	P6 COPY OF T TO THE 2N	HE D RES	COMMUNICAT PONDENT.	ION DATED 31/05/2010 ADDRESSED
EXHIBIT	P7 COPY OF DATED 25/	THE 09/20	COMMUNICA 10 ADDRESS	TION NO.37305/FFP-A1-2010/GAD ED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT	P8 COPY OF 08/12/201	THE 0 OF	ORDER NO THE CENTRA	.52/CC/K/89/2010-FF(SZ) DATED L GOVERNMENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

rvs.

P.V.ASHA J.

--------------------------------------------

¶27

W.P.(C) No.3945 of 2011

¶28

--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner, who is the widow of a prominent freedom fighter, late Kadangottu Krishnan Nambiar is aggrieved by the rejection of her request for dependent family pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the “Scheme”) by the Central Government.

¶31

Petitioner's husband late Kadangottu Krishnan Nambiar, was granted pension under the State Government's Scheme for pension to freedom fighters. He had participated and suffered imprisonment for nine months in Kavumbai struggle, which was recognised for sanction of pension under the SSS Pension Scheme of the Central Government, in the year 1998. Late Krishnan Nambiar had submitted Ext.P1 application on 03.04.1998, for pension under the Scheme. That application was forwarded as per Ext.P2 letter of District Collector to the Commissioner and Secretary of the Government on

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) No.3945 of 2011

¶34

16.04.1999. By Ext.P4, letter dated 31.07.1999 Government of Kerala forwarded the application of petitioner's husband to the Central Government along with necessary documents. Later, petitioner's husband expired and there was no action on the application submitted by the petitioner's husband. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court filing W.P.(C).No.35810 of 2009, which was disposed of by judgment dated 18.02.2010, directing the Central Government, the first respondent in the writ petition to take a decision on the application in accordance with the Scheme and to communicate the same to the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent as per Ext.P6 letter dated 31.05.2010, addressed the State Government requesting to verify the jail certificate furnished by the petitioner and to furnish its verification report keeping in view of the provisions of the Scheme, saying that the copy of the convict register furnished by the petitioner, stated to be issued by Superintendent of Central Jail, Kannur cannot be relied on unless it was verified by the Government. Thereupon, the

¶35

W.P.(C) No.3945 of 2011

¶36

¶37

State Government called for the report on the genuineness of the extract of under trial No.492 in respect of petitioner's husband through the District Collector. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur by his letter No.R19/10 dated 28.07.2010, informed that the the jail records were not traceable, and hence it could not be verified in the absence of the register. Thereupon the District Collector, as per letter dated 04.09.2010 informed that the genuineness of the certificate could not be verified since the registers pertaining to that period were damaged due to the efflux of time. Under these circumstances, State Government by Ext P7 letter, informed the Central Government that it is not in a position to verify the genuineness of the jail certificate. Based on this letter, the first respondent rejected the application of the petitioner and by Ext.P8 letter dated 08/12/2010 addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration & Fisheries Department, Government of Kerala, requested to communicate the decision to the petitioner. In this letter, it was stated that

¶38

W.P.(C) No.3945 of 2011

¶39

¶40

in the absence of evidence to support the claim regarding imprisonment suffering of her deceased husband, the petitioner was not found eligible for pension. According to the first respondent the claim for central Samman pension can be considered by the Central Government only when the application and the requisite documents were duly verified and recommended by the State Government. The petitioner's case was found to have certain discrepancies also regarding her age. There was no acceptable recordbased primary evidence duly verified as State Government, in respect of the imprisonment suffering of the petitioner's late husband. It was further stated that in the absence of primary evidence, Non availability of Records Certificate (NARC) had to be issued by the State Government after making inquiries from all sources, who may have such records which establish the imprisonment suffering of the applicant, but the State Government did not issue any such valid NARC. Thus it was stated that in the absence of primary evidence petitioner had to furnish secondary evidence as provided under the scheme, for

¶41

W.P.(C) No.3945 of 2011

¶42

¶43

which a valid NARC is also necessary.

¶44

The respondents have filed their respective counter affidavits justifying their action. According to the State Government, the genuineness of the jail certificate could not be verified since the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kannur and District Collector, Kannur reported that the registers of the prison for the relevant period could not be traced out.

¶45

According to the first respondent, the extract of jail register furnished by the petitioner along with her application cannot be accepted, as long as it is not verified by the State Government and in such cases the imprisonment has to be proved by producing a Non availability of Records Certificate from the concerned authorities.

¶46

I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Central Govt Standing Counsel and the learned Govt Pleader and considered the contentions.

¶47

From Ext.P2, it is seen that the application submitted by the petitioner's husband along with jail

¶48

W.P.(C) No.3945 of 2011

¶49

¶50

certificate, Ext.P3 was verified by the District Advisory Committee at its meeting held on 16.02.1999, that Committee had after obtaining a report from the Tahsildar, Taliparamba found that the application of the petitioner's husband was genuine and recommended his case as early as on 16.04.1999, pursuant to which, it was forwarded to the State Government, as per Ext.P4. Ext.P2 refers to the extract of Jail Certificate in respect of the imprisonment suffered by late Krishnan Nambiar for the period from 20.01.1947 to 29.10.1947 in the Central Sub Jail, Kannur. Ext.P3 is the copy of extract from the U.T. Register concerning U.T.No.492 in respect of petitioner's husband late Krishnan Nambiar, in which the date of admission in the jail is shown as 20.01.1947, date of release is shown as 29.10.1947 and sentencing authority is shown as Sessions Judge, N.Malabar. The State Government had forwarded his application based on the letter of District Collector, as early as in the year 1999. There is no explanation from the 1^st respondent for the inaction on that application, which was duly forwarded.

¶51

W.P.(C) No.3945 of 2011

¶52

¶53

The first respondent thought it fit to consider the application only after this Court issued direction as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 18.02.2010 in W.P.(C).No.35810 of 2009. At the same time, the application submitted by the petitioner's husband was forwarded as early as on 31.07.1999, as per letter No.41973/FFP.A2/99/GAD dated 31.07.1999, as stated in the counter affidavit of the second respondent, State Government. Now the request is rejected for want of verification as to the genuineness of the jail certificate, which happened on account of lapse of time as the registers are not traceable. It is pertinent to note that there is inordinate delay on the part of the first respondent, in considering the application submitted by petitioner's husband which was forwarded as early as on 31.07.1999 by the second respondent. The verification report was sought in the year 2010 after a period of 11 years and the imprisonment as per Ext.P3 certificate relates to the year 1947.

¶54

However, when the State Government found their inability to verify the genuineness in the absence of

¶55

W.P.(C) No.3945 of 2011

¶56

¶57

records, the second respondent should have sent a Non availability of Records Certificate, after conducting the inquiries for the same, as provided in the scheme when an application from the widow of a freedom fighter was forwarded, instead of informing their inability to verify the same. Therefore, it is necessary that the 2^nd respondent shall forward NARC to 1^st respondent and the 1^st respondent has to reconsider the application of petitioner. As the 1^st respondent has pointed out certain discrepancies in the application of petitioner regarding her age, petitioner will see that the discrepancies are corrected for which she will be free to furnish a representation to the 1^st respondent, furnishing the correct details. It will be open to her to produce further documents also, along with the representation, in support of her claim under the Scheme.

¶58

In these circumstances this writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶59

(i) Ext. P8 is quashed.

¶60

(ii) Petitioner shall submit a representation with

¶61

W.P.(C) No.3945 of 2011

¶62

¶63

correct details as to her age along with further documents if any in support of her claim under the scheme within a period of one month, to the 1^st respondent.

¶64

(iii) The 2^nd respondent shall forward the Non availability of Records Certificate (NARC) to the 1^st respondent within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after conducting the requisite inquiries with respect to the jail certificate in respect of the petitioner's husband.

¶65

(iv) The 1^st respondent shall thereupon reconsider the application of the petitioner, along with her representation and additional documents and the NARC to be forwarded and pass orders thereon within a further period of 'two months'.

¶66

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶69

AS/01/06/16

Puthussery Parvathy v. the Union of India & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puthussery Parvathy v. the Union of India & 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

Bhargavikutty K. Vs State of Kerala

P.C.Supriya Vs State of Kerala

Sreenivasan Vs the Kongad Grama Panchayath and Another

M.Abdul Majeed Vs the Vithura Grama Panchayat and Others

B.S.Sheeja Vs State of Kerala

Dr.P.Balakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala and Others