This intra-court appeal challenged a Single Judge order that recovered family pension from a 91-year-old widow. The Court held retrospective application of new income-free conditions illegal and dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge.
The writ appeal was dismissed; the impugned Single Judge order restricting recovery remains operative.
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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.2755 OF 2015(N)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 6137/2015 DATED 26-06-2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS DIVISION, NEW DELHI -110 003.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:
1 DR.V.SARASWATHI AGED 85 YEARS, W/O.LATE E.GOPALAKRISHNAN MENON, ROHINI TEMPLE ROAD, POOTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR -680 004.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SR.
R1 BY ADV.SMT. RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYESH MOHAN KUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-03-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.2755/2015
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2021
Shaji P. Chaly, J.
This captioned appeal is filed by the first respondent in W.P(C). No.6137 of 2015 challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 26.6.2015, whereby the learned Single Judge ordered that any family benefit pension paid prior to 6.8.2014 to the petitioner cannot be recovered, and any pension paid after that date will be liable for recovery and consequently Exhibits P4, P5 and P6 orders issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 26.12.2014, 23.1.2015 and 26.12.2014 respectively, were quashed.
Writ petitioner’s husband had been receiving Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension and after his death in 1996, writ petitioner had been receiving it in her capacity as the widow of the deceased freedom fighter. During 2014, Union of India/appellant issued guidelines restricting grant of pension only to spouses of deceased freedom fighters, who had no other source of income. Based on that, petitioners pension was cancelled as null and void and thereupon, State Bank of Travancore and Branch Manager of State Bank of Travancore, Thrissur were directed to recover an amount of Rs.18,49,181/- from the writ petitioner. The
3
WA.2755/2015
subject matter of challenge in the writ petition was in regard to the retrospective operation given to the guidelines issued in 2014 and the recovery sought to be made on that basis. In the above backdrop, the reliefs sought for were to quash Exts.P4 to P6 communications issued by the Government of India for recovering the amounts paid prior to 18.12.2014 and a consequential writ restraining respondent from recovering any amount received by the writ petitioner as per Exhibit P3 order dated 21.8.1989 so as to make payment effective from 20.3.1983.
4
WA.2755/2015
that it cannot be said that the pension disbursed to the writ petitioner was wrongful and without looking into the provisions of the Scheme.
5
WA.2755/2015
Rs.18,49,181/- paid to the petitioner, ie., to say the new guideline was given retrospective effect. The question is whether such an action on the part of the appellants is sustainable under law ?
WA.2755/2015
6
Upshot of the above discussion is, the writ appeal fails and accordingly
it is dismissed.
Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice
Sd/-
Shaji P. Chaly, Judge
sou.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the guidelines restricting freedom fighter pension to dependent wives with no other source of income are prospective or retrospective.
Whether the Single Judge committed jurisdictional error or illegality in dismissing the writ petition challenging such recovery orders.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
Dr. V. Saraswathi
State Bank of Travancore
Branch Manager State Bank of Travancore
S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
