Remanded

Ponnamma George v. Union of India

Kerala HC5 Jul 2018WP(C)/10568/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court ruled that the State Government must conduct a thorough investigation to verify the credibility of Personal Knowledge Certificates issued by a specific freedom fighter before recommending pension claims to the Union Government, requiring both authorities to spell out reasons.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection orders and recommendation letters set aside. Matter remitted to State Government to conduct investigation, ascertain credibility of Personal Knowledge Certificates, and report reaso

Ponnamma George Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 10568 of 2013

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

PONNAMMA GEORGE, W/O.LATE P.A.GEORGE, VELASSERIYIL, SANATHANAM WARD, AVULOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.K.K.SATHEESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVT., MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS' DIVISION, NEW DELHI CITY CENTRE - II BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, 'A' WING, JAISINGH ROAD, NEAR YMCA, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶11

ADDITIONAL R2 IMPLEADED

¶12

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

¶13

ADDITIONAL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05.07.2018 IN I.A.NO.10901 OF 2018.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JESTIN MATHEW

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-07-2018, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO. 14912 OF 2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

13.07.2018

¶18

WP(C).No. 10568 of 2013 (U)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT	P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA DATED 23.01.1985 CERTIFYING THAT SRI.P.A.GEORGE IS A STATE PENSIONER.
EXHIBIT	P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 30.04.1998.
EXHIBIT	P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE NARC ISSUED BY THE CJM COURT, ALAPPUZHA.
EXHIBIT	P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE PKC ISSUED BY THE PROMINENT FREEDOM FIGHTER SRI.H.K.CHAKRAPANI.
EXHIBIT	P5 SER	IES: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2012 IN W.P.(C)NO.10664/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT	P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.65784/FFP.A2/2012/GAD DATED 25.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVT. TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.65784/FFP.A2/2012/GAD DATED 10.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVT.
EXHIBIT	P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.52/CC/K/83/2010-FF(SZ) DATED 22.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd. 13.07.2018

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P.(C)Nos.10568, 14912, 23701, 25918, 26807, 14723, 17818, 25260, 28650, 16407, 13333, 22253, 18672, 18086 and 25458 of 2013, 2482 of 2018 & 5793 of 2014

¶29

Dated this the 5th day of July, 2018

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

All the above Writ Petitions, except W.P.(C).No.5793/2014:-

¶32

The grievances of the petitioners in the abovecaptioned 17 Writ Petitions (Civil) are in relation to the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Union Government rejecting the claim for freedom fighters’ pension under the “Swatantratha Sainik Samman Pension” Scheme. In some of the cases, the writ petitioners are the persons, who claimed to be freedom fighters and the other petitioners are the persons, who claim to be the widows/legal representatives of such deceased claimants. The respondent Union Government had formulated the abovesaid central scheme for regulating the matters relating to grant of freedom fighters’ pension under the said Central Scheme. The conditions of the said scheme which are relevant for the present purposes in these cases are enumerated as Anx- 2 to the said scheme which read as follows :

¶33

“ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS AND EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS FOR SWATANTRATA SAINIK SAMMAN PENSION SCHEME, 1980.

¶34

::2::

¶35

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶36

Who is eligible for Samman Pension :-

¶37

All the persons who participated in the freedom movement in some way or the other are not eligible for Samman Pension. Details regarding eligibility of the freedom fighters for grant of Central Samman Pension are given in annexure 1 (Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980). Dependents of martyrs are also eligible for grant of the pension.

¶38

2. Documents to be furnished

¶39

2.1 In case of imprisonment:

¶40

(a) Imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned jail authority, District Magistrate or the State Govt. indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release.

¶41

(b) In case records of the relevant period are not available, the secondary evidences in the form of 2 co-prisoner certificates (CPC) from freedom fighters who have proven jail suffering of minimum 1 year and who were with the applicant in the jail could be considered provided the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned, after due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certifies that documentary evidences from the official records in support of the claimed sufferings were not available. In case the certifier happens to be a sitting or Ex.M.P./M.L.A., only one certificate in place of the two is required.

¶42

2.2 In case of underground suffering:

¶43

(a) Documentary evidence by way of Court’s /Govt.’s orders proclaiming the applicant as an absconder, announcing an award on his head or for his arrest or ordering his detention.

¶44

(b) In case records of the relevant period are not available, secondary evidence in the form of a Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) from a prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering of a minimum two years and who happened to be from the same administrative unit could be considered provided the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned, after due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certifies that documentary evidences from the official records in support of the claimed sufferings were not available.”

¶45

In all these cases, the contention is that the claimant freedom fighter had participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar movement which took place in the then Princely State of Travancore, which is now part of the State

¶46

of Kerala and that due to non-availability of official records, they are not in a position to produce documents relating to the warrant of arrest

¶47

issued as against them consequent to which they had remained

¶48

underground and that therefore they had produced secondary evidence

¶49

::3::

¶50

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶51

in the form of Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) from one Sri.H.K.Chakrapani, an eligible certifier, who was stated to be a prominent freedom fighter who had suffered the minimum prescribed two years jail suffering on account of his participation in the PunnapraVayalar Movement. In most of the cases, the impugned orders have been issued after remand on one occasion or more than one. In all these cases, the State Government has issued the requisite letters recommending the case of the claimant freedom fighter's pension on the basis of the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani and the respondent State Government has also issued the requisite NARC (Non-Availability of Records Certificate), certifying that none of the relevant official records relating to the warrant of arrest on the basis of which the claimants are said to have remained underground, are available with the respondent State authorities.

¶52

The respondent-Union Government has rejected the claims in all these cases mainly on the ground that the Personal Knowledge Certificates (PKC) issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani, which certified that the respective claimants in these cases had remained underground for the period mentioned therein on account of the warrant of arrest issued against them on account of their participation in the Punnapra-Vayalar

¶53

::4::

¶54

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶55

Movement, etc., lack credibility and believability and that Sri.H.K.Chakrapani has been indiscriminately issuing such PKCs to many persons like the present petitioners. It is these rejection orders issued by the respondent-Union Government that is under challenge in these writ proceedings.

¶56

Heard Sri.K.K.Sathish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions, Sri.N.Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent-Union of India in all the cases other than W.P.(C).No.14912/2013 and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State Government.

¶57

It is now brought to the notice of this Court that in a similar case wherein the respondent-Union Government had issued the rejection order mainly on the ground that the Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani, is not acceptable or credible, has been considered by this Court in W.P.(C).No.16283/2013, which has been disposed of as per judgment dated 22.6.2018, which reads as follows:

¶58

“The claim for 'Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension' on the basis of the participation of the petitioner's late husband in 'Punnapra-Vayalar Movement' has been rejected stating that the petitioner had not produced any acceptable evidence. The question now confined to the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri.H.K Chakrapani. Admittedly, H.K Chakrapani is an eligible certifier. The petitioner's case is that her late husband remained underground for a period of more than six months from

¶59

::5::

¶60

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶61

30.10.1946 to 30.06.1947. The State Government in the letter dated 18.11.2009 raised certain doubts regarding the genuineness of the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by H.K Chakrapani. The earlier decision of the Central Government had been interfered by this Court in WP(C) No. 15346/2008. Thereafter, the State Government again forwarded the recommendation by Ext.P8, recommending positively the case of the petitioner. However, nothing has been stated about the genuineness of the certificate. If the State Government was satisfied with the genuineness of the certificate, the State Government must spell the reasons for such satisfaction. The Central Government after adverting to the earlier view of the State Government and in the absence of any other materials to revise earlier finding in regard to the genuineness was not prepared to accept the recommendation of the State Government. Accordingly, the Central Government rejected the claim for pension.

¶62

Having considered the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that matter has to be reconsidered. The State Government will have to spell the reasons for finding that the certificate is genuine or not, after conducting proper investigations. No doubt, the State Government give reasons to the satisfaction of the Central Government that certificate is genuine. Petitioner's case will have to be considered for sanction of the pension by the Central Government. Accordingly the impugned order as well as Ext.P8 recommendation are set aside. The State Government is directed to make thorough investigation as to the genuineness of the certificate and make appropriate recommendation to the Central Government, within a period of three months. Thereafter, the Central Government shall take decision within further period of two months. It is to be noted that in connected matter, the Central Government had commended upon the credibility of the certificate issued by H.K Chakrapani. This was in the matter of claim for pension by Janaki Ramankutty. In that it is stated that, H.K Chakrapani had misused his status of the freedom fighter by issuing the Personal Knowledge Certificate indiscriminately. This was so observed after obtaining reports from the Government of Kerala on the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by H.K Chakrapani.

¶63

Writ petition is disposed of as above.”

¶64

From a reading of the materials in these Writ Petitions, more particularly, like the one as per the impugned Ext.P-11 order in W.P.(C).No.13333/2013, it is seen that the respondent-Union Government has specifically adverted to another letter of the

¶65

::6::

¶66

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶67

Government of Kerala dated 22.2.2007 as well as the letter dated 18.11.2009 wherein it was opined by the respondent-State Government authorities that the contents of the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani in those two cases are bereft of any credibility and that he has been issuing certificates in that regard indiscriminately and those PKCs issued by him cannot be relied upon for the purpose of recommendation by the State Government to the Central Government in relation to the claims for being considered for the above said pension under the Central Scheme, etc. The above said relevant contents of the said letters dated 20.2.2007 and dated 18.11.2009 of the Government of Kerala have been quoted in the internal pages 3 & 4 of the said Ext.P-11 Union Government letter dated 2.5.2013 produced in W.P.(C).No.13333/2013, which read as follows:

¶68

'(a) Government of Kerala had vide letter No.46673/FFPA2/2006/GAD dated 20-02-2007 sent claim application, supporting documents and mandatory verification cum entitlement to pension report in respect of Smt.Stella Xavier and inter alia commended on the PKC issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani-

¶69

“ In the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani, it is certified that the petitioner remained underground from 10/46. The Punnapra Struggle commenced only in the last part of 10/46 and the claimed underground sufferings from the same month should not have been due to the issue of an arrest warrant as it will take some time to complete the procedure of issue of Arrest Warrant. So the case of the petitioner is not recommendable for Swarantrata Sainik Samman Pension.”

¶70

(b) Government of Kerala had vide letter No.50713/FFPA2/2008/GAD dated 18-11-2009 sent claim application, supporting documents and mandatory verification cum entitlement to pension report in

¶71

::7::

¶72

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶73

respect of Smt.Rajamma w/o. Late A.K.Peethambaran and inter alia commented on the PKC issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani-

¶74

“.............. Regarding the other Personal Knowledge Certificate given by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani it is seen issued only on 0405-2006 i.e., after sixty years of the claimed underground sufferings. The certificate issued after sixty years with specific details of the case No. and period of underground sufferings of the petitioner by another person seems doubtful. Moreover the certifier Sri.Chakrapani has been sanctioned pension by Government of India only in 2003 by giving benefit of doubt. He has issued a number of Personal Knowledge Certificates indiscriminately. Hence the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by him cannot be relied upon for recommendation of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension claim of the petitioner.”

¶75

(c) Government of Kerala had vide the aforesaid letter dated 31-12-2012 recommended the claim application without specifying any reason/basis for the positive recommendation, just in compliance of direction of the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 13-02-2012 in W.P.(C).No.9230/08 filed by the petitioner. Hence, it is not acceptable.'

¶76

So also it is seen that this Court in the above said judgment

¶77

of this Court in W.P.(C).No.16283/2013 has specifically adverted to yet another letter dated 18.11.2009 of the State Government, wherein the State Government has raised certain doubts regarding the acceptability and reliability of the contents of the PKC issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani, issued on a previous occasion in that case. In the light of these aspects, more particularly, in the light of the well considered view taken by this Court in the judgment dated 22.6.2018 in W.P.(C).No.16283/2013, which pertains to a similar case regarding the acceptability or otherwise of the PKC issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani to another claimant, this Court is also of the view that the course of action adopted by this Court in W.P.(C).No.16283/2013 has to be followed in these cases as well.

¶78

::8::

¶79

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶80

6. Sri.N.Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General

¶81

appearing for the respondent Union Government has submitted that some time may be granted to file counter affidavit in W.P.(C).No. 2482/2018 to get some of the factual aspects on record. The application of the petitioner therein was rejected by the impugned Ext.P-12 order dated 6.10.2017 issued by the 1st respondent Union Government, wherein it is stated that the rejection is on the ground that the petitioner's husband had not produced any documents establishing the jail sufferings. Whereas the petitioner would contend that her husband had claimed only underground sufferings and therefore the very ground made out in the impugned Ext.P-12, which is based on the alleged non production of records relating to actual jail sufferings, itself would show non-application of mind and arbitrariness, etc. It is some of these factual aspects that the 1st respondent Union Government wants to clarify in the pleadings proposed to be filed by them by way of counter affidavit. This Court is of the view that since the co-prisoner's certificate in this case has also been issued by the aforesaid Sri.H.K.Chakrapani, as in the other cases dealt with herein above, separate treatment of the facts of this case is not necessary in this writ proceedings, as this Court is proposing to remit the matter to the respondent State Government authorities to decide afresh on the issue

¶82

::9::

¶83

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶84

as to the acceptability or otherwise of the personal knowledge certificate issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani, in each of these cases. Therefore, there is no necessity for the 1st respondent Union Government to separately file any counter affidavit in this case to deal with the above referred factual aspects, as this Court is not now concerned with those aspects and as in all the other cases, the matter herein is also only to be remitted for the above purpose.

¶85

Accordingly, taking into totality of the facts and circumstances in these cases, it is ordered that the matter is liable to be reconsidered both at the ends of respondent State-Government as well as respondent-Union Government authorities concerned. The State Government will have to consider the matter afresh as to whether or not recommendation should be made in the case of each of these claimants and as to whether or not the contents of PKC issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani to each of these claimants are reliable and credible. The State Government will grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to each of these petitioners through their authorised representative/counsel and will take a well considered decision on the above said aspects and should spell out the reasons for arriving at the findings as to whether or not the PKC issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani is credible and reliable or not, after conducting necessary enquiries in that

¶86

::10::

¶87

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶88

regard and after taking into account all the attendant relevant circumstances in each of these cases. The State Government will have to give cogent and proper reasons for arriving at the well considered conclusion as to whether the PKCs issued in these cases by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani are worthy of acceptance for the purpose of recommending their cases to the respondent-Union Government. The respondent-State Government authorities will issue notice of hearing to the respective petitioners within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and thereafter will conduct a hearing pertaining to the case of these petitioners by hearing these petitioners or through their authorised representative/counsel, if any. Thereafter, the State Government will have to issue respective letters in each of these cases to the respondent-Union Government conveying as to whether or not they are recommending the case of each of these petitioners after stating and spelling out the reasons for arriving at such considered conclusion. A copy of respective letters of recommendation issued by the respondent-State Government to the Union Government should also be separately sent to the respective petitioners by registered speed post. In cases, where the respondent State Government authorities take a considered view not to recommend the cases of those respective claimants, then it is for the aggrieved claimants to work out their

¶89

::11::

¶90

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶91

remedies in accordance with law, as the respondent-Union Government has no competence under the Scheme to consider a case, which is not recommended by the respondent-State Government. If in any of these cases, the respondent State Government makes a positive recommendation in favour of the claimant concerned, then such respective petitioners, on receipt of the copy of the said letters from the respondent-State Government may give their written submissions to the competent authority of the respondent-Union Government for urging all their contentions and grounds that they are eligible and entitled for the grant of said benefits. This the respective petitioners who have received the positive letters of recommendation may do so by submitting their written submission to the respondent-Union Government within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of their respective letters of recommendation issued by the State Government. After the expiry of the above said period, the competent authority of the Union Government will consider the case of those claimants in respect of whom the respondent State Government has granted positive letters of recommendation by taking into consideration the recommendation of the State Government as well as the submissions and contentions of the respective petitioners, which they make through their written submissions and all other relevant aspects of the matter and take a

¶92

::12::

¶93

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶94

considered decision as to whether or not Freedom Fighters' Pension is to be granted under the Central Scheme to the respective claimants. A final decision in that regard should be rendered by the respondentUnion Government without much delay preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of letters of recommendations from the competent authority of the State Government. While taking a decision as directed above, the competent authority of the State Government as well as that of the Union Government may take into consideration all the relevant aspects of the matter including the above said aspects. As the matters now stand remitted, it is ordered that the respective competent authorities of the State Government and Union Government will decide the case afresh as aforestated. To facilitate a proper remit, the respective recommendations made by the State Government through their letters in each of these cases as well as the impugned rejection orders passed by the respondent-Union Government in these cases will stand set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the State-Government and the Union Government to take decision afresh as aforestated.

¶95

With these observations and directions, all the above Writ Petitions except W.P.(C).No.5793/2014 will stand finally disposed of.

¶96

::13::

¶97

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶98

W.P.(C).No.5793/2014

¶99

The facts in issue in this Writ Petition are slightly different from the one in the 16 other Writ Petitions dealt with hereinabove. In this case also the applicant/claimant's widow had secured a Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani, who was an awardee of the Central Freedom Fighter's Pension and the PKC issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani has been produced herein as Ext.P-3 dated 10.5.2007. However, in this case, the State Government has come to the considered conclusion as per the impugned decision reflected in Ext.P-6 letter No.41222/FFP A2/2013/GAD dated 15.2.2014, whereby the respondentState Government has found that the above said PKC issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani is not acceptable for the reasons stated therein and that the petitioner could not produce any further valid document to prove his participation in the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement as stipulated in the Central Pension Scheme and that the State Government is thus not in a position to recommend the case of the petitioner herein for SSS Pension. It is this order at Ext.P-6 that is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

¶100

Heard Sri.K.K.Sathish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri.N.Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the 1st respondent-Union Government.

¶101

::14::

¶102

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶103

It is common ground that the respondent-Union

¶104

Government has the competence to consider the claim for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension under the Central Scheme only if the competent authority of the respondent-State Government concerned makes a positive recommendation with respect to the applicant concerned stating that the State Government is recommending the case of the claimant concerned for the grant of the Pension under the Central Scheme, etc. So in a case, where the respondent-State authority has refused to take a considered decision recommending the case of a claimant, then there is no necessity for the respondent-Union Government taking any decision in the matter one way or the other. So, essentially the only order under challenge in this case is the one rendered by the respondent-State Government at Ext.P-6. This Court in the above said 16 other Writ Petitions dealt with in the common judgment hereinabove has already taken the view that the crucial issue relating to reliability and credibility of the certificates issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani in the other 16 Writ Petitions is to be remitted to the respondent-State Government to consider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment and other directions therein. Here, in this case, this Court is called upon to consider the factual issue as to whether the view taken by the State Government in the present

¶105

::15::

¶106

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶107

impugned proceedings that the PKC issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani is not acceptable for the reasons stated therein, etc. Since the abovesaid factual issue in the other 16 cases has been remitted to the State Government, it may not be right and proper for this Court to exercise the powers of judicial review and to consider on merits the above said issue in this Writ Petition as any decision taken by this Court on this issue one way or other may have the effect of affecting the cases already remitted to the respondent-State Government. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is only just and fair so as to render justice to both sides, to remit the matter to the State Government, in this case also. This Court would hence desist from adjudicating the matter at this stage and that interest of justice would be advanced by remitting this case also to the respondent-State Government for consideration of the issue afresh. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the controversy in any manner and in order to remit the matter to the respondent-State Government, the impugned decision of the respondent-State Government as reflected in Ext.P-6 Government letter dated 15.2.2014 will stand quashed. The matter will stand remitted to the respondent-State Government for consideration afresh as to whether or not the State Government should recommend the case of the petitioner for the grant of Freedom Fighter's Pension under the Central

¶108

::16::

¶109

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶110

Scheme and in that regard the issue as to the credibility and reliability of the PKC issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani should also be considered after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner will be at liberty to submit her written submissions to the competent authority of the respondent-State Government along with a certified copy of this judgment and this may be done within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the competent authority of the 2 nd respondent will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard either in person or through authorised representative/counsel, if any, and consider the entire issue afresh taking note of the directions issued in the other 16 cases to the extent they are applicable to this case as well.

¶111

Thereafter the decision of the State-Government in the matter should be duly conveyed to the Writ Petitioner. As already directed in the other 16 Writ Petitions, it is also further clarified that in case the respondent-State Government takes a decision to make a positive recommendation to the respondent-Union Government, in the case of the petitioner herein, then the communication in that regard should be duly forwarded to the competent authority of the respondentUnion Government and to the petitioner. Upon receiving a copy of the communication in that regard by the petitioner from the respondent-

¶112

::17::

¶113

W.P(C).Nos.10568/2013, etc.

¶114

State Government, it will be open to the petitioner to make necessary written submission to the respondent-Union Government in order to enable them to consider the various aspects that may be pointed out by the petitioner and thereafter it is for the competent authority of the Union Government to take a final decision in the matter. Needless to say, the above said direction to the respondent-Union Government, comes into play only if the 2nd respondent-State Government makes a positive recommendation in the petitioner's case to the respondentUnion Government.

¶115

With these observations and directions W.P.(C).No.5793/2014 will also stand finally disposed of.

¶116

Sd/-

¶117

ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶118

Vgd/bkn

¶119

// True copy //

¶120

P.A to Judge.

Ponnamma George v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnamma George v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.Somanatha Vs State of Kerala

Muneerul Anam Sangham Akode Vs the District Registrar(General)

M/S. Hi-Lite Relators [India] LLP Vs the State of Kerala

Jabbar.a.K Vs State of Kerala

Apoy Alexander @ Alexander Vadakkedam Vs State Bank of India

Narayanan Vs the Special Tahsildar