Dismissed

Union of India v. N. Kamalakshy

Kerala HC26 Jun 2018WA/1090/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an appeal against an order granting freedom fighters' pension to the widow of a recognized participant in the Vayalar Movement. Rejecting the appellant's reliance on inconsistent personal knowledge certificates, the Court upheld the Widow's eligibility and directed the Union of India to disburse the pension under the Swathanthratha Sainik Samman Pension Scheme within two months

What did the court decide?

Union of India directed to disburse freedom fighters pension to the writ petitioner under the Swathanthratha Sainik Samman Pension Scheme within two months.

Union of India Vs N. Kamalakshy — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶6

WA.No. 1090 of 2018 IN WPC. 20727/2013

¶7

¶8

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶9

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, 2ND FLOOR, NDCC-2 BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 003.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:

¶12

1. N. KAMALAKSHY, W/O.CHELLAPPAN, THOTTUKADAVIL HOUSE, KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA -688 001.

¶13

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 690 001.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) R1 BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

vpv

¶17

HRISHIKESH ROY, Ag.C.J. & A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Writ Appeal No.1090 of 2018

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26^th day of June, 2018

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag.C.J.

¶22

Heard the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the appellant/ respondent No.1 in the writ proceedings. Also heard Sri.T.G.Sunil, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

¶23

The writ petitioner is the widow of one Sankaran Chellappan, who was recognized as a freedom fighter and was awarded the 'Thamrapathra', as can be seen from the Ext.P2 document dated 8.8.1975. Following the death of the recognized freedom fighter, who suffered imprisonment as part of Punnapra - Vayalar struggle, the widow applied for pension under the Swathanthratha Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 managed by the Central Government. But her claim was rejected by the Ext.P15 order, dated 6.5.2013. The aggrieved party, then challenged the rejection of her claim for the Swathanthratha Sainik Samman Pension.

¶24

The learned Single Judge, after due consideration of the rival submission and referring to the Ext.P11 report of the District Collector, Alappuzha opined that there is no justification to disbelieve the Ext.P11 report, in which the Collector had stated as follows:

¶25

“Kindly referred to the above. Shri.Sankaran Chellappan, Thottukadavil, Kadakkarapally, Vayalar, Alappuzha was a convict for 9 months in Alappuzha Sub-Jail in C.C.No.23/122 in relation to Vayalar Movement and as per the recommendation for pension by letter No.D4/SR/323 dated 9.6.1972 of the Tahsildar, Cherthala and as the above said person's name is shown as 10^th in category-IV of the police list available in this office, by letter No.RDis.18677/72 dated 29.6.1972 the District Collector has sanctioned State Pension to the above said person. The said Police list requested by you is enclosed herewith.”

¶26

Writ Appeal No.1090 of 2018

¶27

: 2 :

¶28

The claim for pension under the Ext.R-1(a) scheme notified on 15.8.1981 provide for the supporting documents to be furnished to make the claim for pension and in satisfaction of these requirements the applicant furnished certificates from two competent persons. However, on the basis of certain purported inconsistency in the certificate of the two freedom fighters Sri.P.A.Solomon and Sri.Narayanan Ramankutty, the claims of the widow was rejected. The specific discrepancy attributed to the personal knowledge of the two certificate givers relate to the fact that, one stated that the Sankaran Chellappan had suffered imprisonment while other person said that he remained underground during freedom struggle. Thus, the genuineness of the Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) issued by Sri.Solomon and Sri.Ramankutty were disbelieved and on that basis, the Ext.P15 rejection order was issued.

¶29

The primary basis for considering eligibility to receive the freedom fighters pension is a verification exercise to determine whether the claimant or his/her predecessor was a participant in the freedom movement and had suffered on account of such participation. The Ext.P11 certificate given by the District Collector on 5.10.2012 makes it abundantly clear that the writ petitioner's husband Sankaran Chellappan was incarcerated in the Alappuzha Sub-Jail in C.C.23/122 in relation to the Vayalar Movement and as per the recommendation for pension made by the Tahsildar, Cherthala, he was considered eligible for the State Freedom Fighters Pension.

¶30

It is important to note herein that the appellant/Union of India has not brought anything on record to persuade the court to disbelieve the certificate of the District Collector. In our understanding unless there is convincing reason for not

¶31

Writ Appeal No.1090 of 2018

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

accepting the District Collector's report, the rejection of the claim of the widow would be untenable particularly when, her husband was awarded the 'Thamrapathra', in recognition of his participation in the freedom movement of the country.

¶34

The impugned order shows that the learned Judge had considered all relevant materials and declared that the petitioner is entitled and consequential direction was issued to disburse the freedom fighters pension to her within two months. On due assessment, we find no infirmity with the learned Judge's order and accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and endorse the impugned verdict.

¶35

The appellant is accordingly directed to ensure disbursal of the pension to the writ petitioner, under the 'Swathanthratha Sainik Samman Pension' within two months from today. It is ordered accordingly.

¶36

sd/- HRISHIKESH ROY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶37

sd/-

¶38

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶39

jes

Union of India v. N. Kamalakshy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. N. Kamalakshy

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

Kunjukrishnapillai Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Abhishek Sudarsanan Vs the Village Officer

Anjali Padmanabhan Vs Commissioner for Entrance Examination

The Chief Engineer, Roads and Bridges, Thiruvananthapuram Vs Saju Peter