Allowed

Devaki Amma v. the Union of India and Others

Kerala HC8 Jan 2016WP(C)/5544/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a family pension application for the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The court found that record loss resulted from long government delays and directed the Central Government to reconsider the application and issue a Non Availability of Records Certificate within one month. Exhibit P8 was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P8 order rejected. Application to be reconsidered by First Respondent. NARC to be issued if records unverified within one month. Final orders within one month thereafter.

Devaki Amma Vs the Union of India and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/18TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 5544 of 2011 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DEVAKI AMMA, W/O.LATE MAVILA KUNHAPPA NAMBIAR, PAPPINISSERY PADINJARE VEEDU, ERUVESSY.P.O., CHEMPERI (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670 632. BY ADVS.SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.M.A.FIROZ

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

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

¶10

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP.A)DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 670 001. R2 AND R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY LESLEY R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C).No. 5544 of 2011

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE JAIL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR.

¶15

EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.44407/FFP.A2/99/GAD DATED 25.6.1999.

¶16

EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.119/5495/83 FF (S2) DATED 27.7.1999.

¶17

EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9.3.2010 IN W.P(C).NO.33889/2009(E).

¶18

EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 19.8.2010 ADDRESSED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

¶19

EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.52/CC/K/79/2010-FF(SZ).

¶20

EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.529396/FFP-A1/2010/GAD DATED 16.9.2010 ADDRESSED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF ORDER NO.52/CC/K/79/2010-FF(SZ) DATED 26.11.2010 OF THE CENTRAL GVERNMENT.

¶22

/TRUE COPY/

¶23

PS TO JUDGE

¶24

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶25

W.P(C).5544 of 2011

¶26

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th January, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The challenge in this writ petition is directed against Exhibit P8 order rejecting the application of the petitioner for Family Pension in terms of the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The petitioner submits that she is the widow of late Mavila Kunhappa Nambiar, who had participated in the Kavumbai Struggle and had been granted pension under the Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. The petitioner's husband had submitted the initial application for Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension in 1998, which had been forwarded by Exhibit P2 in 1999. It is stated that Exhibit P3 was issued to the State Government for verification of the certificates. When no steps were taken thereon, the petitioner had approached this Court and by Exhibit P4 judgment, the State Government was directed to forward further verification report to the Union Government and further action was directed to be taken. Even thereafter, communications were issued between the State Government and the Central Government and ultimately, by Exhibit P8, the request of the petitioner was rejected. It was stated that the rejection of the petitioner's application was on four grounds as detailed in Exhibit P8 order. The reasons for rejection are extracted below:

¶29

¶30

WP(C).5544/11

¶31

“(i) She has not submitted any acceptable record-based primary evidence, duly verified by the State Government, in support of her late husband's claimed imprisonment suffering.

¶32

(ii) In the absence of primary evidence, Non availabiliyt of Records Certificate (NARC) has to be issued by the State Government after making enquiries from all sources, who may have such records which establish the imprisonment suffering of the applicant. No such valid NARC has been issued by the State Government.

¶33

(iii) In case of imprisonment suffering, the applicant is required to submit two Co-Prisoner Certificates (CPCs) from prominent freedom fighters who have proven jail suffering of minimum one year and who were with the applicant in the jail. These CPCs are accepted only when these are supported along with a valid NARC from the State Government. The petitioner has not produced a valid NARC under the provisions of the Scheme.

¶34

(iv) State Government vide its letter No.29396/ FFP.A1/2010/GAD dated 19^th August, 2010 has inter alia stated as follows:-

¶35

“I am directed to invite attention to the reference cited. In continuation of this Government letter 3^rd cited, I am to inform that the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kannur as per his letter 4^th cited has reported that the genuineness of the extract of under trial register No.425 concerning late Mavila Kunhappa Nambiar (Ext.P3) could not be verified as the jail records during the period of

¶36

¶37

WP(C).5544/11

¶38

freedom struggle are worn out and not clear due to the efflux of time. Therefore, he has reported that he is not in a position t verify accurately the information called for by the State Government in this regard. This is for information and further action.”

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶40

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the long delay in consideration of the application has resulted in the documents relied upon by the petitioner having become incapable of verification. In the above circumstances, the petitioner submits that Non Availability of Records Certificate should have been issued by the State Government, in which event the petitioner's application would be processed.

¶41

It is clear that the petitioner's husband had made initial application for pension as early as in the year 1998. The communications between the State Government and the Central Government had been going on in the matter. In any case the petitioner's application came to be rejected only in the year 2010. In the meanwhile, the documents had lost or became incapable of verification.

¶42

¶43

WP(C).5544/11

¶44

In view of the fact that the petitioner's husband was the recipient of the Freedom Fighters Pension granted by the State Government as also the fact that the long delay in consideration of the application had resulted in the documents became incapable of verification, I am of the view that the first respondent should reconsider the application preferred by the petitioner for family pension under the SSS Pension Scheme. Exhibit P8 is set aside. The State Government shall verify the records and forward the Non Availability of Records Certificate in case the records cannot be verified by it within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is also free to produce any evidence in support of her claim before the Central Government. The first respondent shall take up the application preferred by the petitioner with the documents to be forwarded by the State Government as well as any materials produced by the petitioner and pass final orders thereon, within one month thereafter.

¶45

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶46

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

vgs8/1

Devaki Amma v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devaki Amma v. the 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

Abdu Vs the Perumanna Grama Panchayat

P. Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

M.v.Avarankutty Vs the Superintending Engineer

K.Thampi Rajan Vs State of Kerala

George Varghese Vs Director of Higher Secondary Education

Sandhya Rani v. Vs State of Kerala