The High Court dismissed the State's appeal against the Single Judge's order granting Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension to freedom fighter family members. The Bench held that the lower court was correct in adopting a liberal standard of proof mandated by the Supreme Court for such pension schemes.
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 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WA NO. 1249 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 13863/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, (FFR DIVISION), 2ND FLOOR, NDCC-2
BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI- 110003.
BY ADV JAISHANKAR V.NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 N.K.GOPALAN, (DIED) (DEVASWOM CHIRAYIL) PORNAMI, KOTTAMKULANAGARA WARD, SAVALOOKINNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA- 688006.2 SMT. CHELLAMMA (PRASANNA), W/O SHRI CHITHARANGADAS, KARTHIKA, POONTHOPPU WARD, ALAPPUZHA3 SMT. LALITHAMBIKA, W/O SHRI KHANADAS, SREESHILAM, KOMALAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA.4 SMT. KANAKAMBIKA, W/O SHRI MOHANAN, POURNAMI, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA5 SHRI PRASEANEN, ASWABHAVAN, PAZHAVEEDU P. O., ALAPPUZHAADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 IMPLEADED BY ORDER
DATED 08.12.2022 IN I. A. NO. 1 OF 2020.
BY ADV K.K.SATHISH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-2-
J U D G M E N T
S. Manikumar, C. J.
Instant writ appeal has been filed by the Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (FFR Division), New Delhi, challenging the common judgment dated 09.07.2018 in W. P. (C) No. 13863 of 2013, by which, the writ court allowed the writ petition directing the appellant herein to grant pension to the writ petitioner, in accordance with the SSS Pension Scheme, 1980, within a period of three months.
“i) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension” (SSS Pension);
ii) call for the records leading to the issue of Exhibit-P13 and quash its original by issuance of a writ of certiorari;
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, compelling the respondent to grant the benefit of SSS Pension to the petitioner with the actual arrears due to him within a stipulated time.”
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-3-
the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement as a part of the National Freedom
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-4-
Struggle, the petitioner submitted Ext. P4 application to the respondent. In order to substantiate his underground sufferings, he relied on the Personal Knowledge Certificates issued by the prominent freedom fighter Sri.Kunjan Sukumaran, Sri.Narayanan Ramankutty and Sri. H. K. Chakrapany and also the Non-availability of records certificate (NARC) from the CJM Court, Alappuzha. Although the State Government duly recommended the petitioner's claim for SSS pension along with the valid Non-availability of Records Certificate in the prescribed manner as per Ext. P12, the respondent rejected his claim as per Ext. P13 with a biased and closed mind in an arbitrary manner completely ignoring the basic principles/objectives of the SSS Pension Scheme. The case of the petitioner has also been disposed of by ignoring the mandate of law and the Scheme.
“13. These claimants have been pursuing the matter for
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-5-
quite a long time and claimants have participated in the Punnapra Vayalar movement that took place in October, 1946. Long years have elapsed after the said historic event. Therefore, this Court is fully inclined to accept the reasonings rendered by this Court in the judgment dated 30.5.2018 in W.P.(C).No. 14070/2013 and would follow the said directions, which had allowed the claim on merits. It should also be borne in mind that the present generation is able to enjoy the oxygen of freedom and liberty only because of the sufferings of the freedom fighters, who took part in the historical struggle for making India free from colonial rule. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that again making a remit would be unjust and would unnecessarily prolong the matter. Therefore, going by the reasonings and the line of directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C).No. 10470/2013, it is ordered that the respective impugned orders in these three cases issued by the respondent Union Government authorities will stand set aside. It is further ordered and declared that the petitioners/ claimants concerned herein in these 3 cases are entitled for grant of Central SSS Pension in accordance with the Central scheme. The petitioner will be entitled for grant of pension and its arrears from the respective dates of issuance of the present rejection orders passed by the respondent Union Government, which have now been quashed. So the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.19452/2013, W.P.(C).No.13863/2013 and W.P. (C).No. 2470/ 2014 will be entitled for grant of freedom fighters' pension and its arrears from 25.6.2013, 11.2.2013 and 15.1.2014 respectively. The pension and arrears of pension should be
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-6-
released to the respective petitioners concerned in these three cases within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.”
“48. As regards the first ground for rejecting the claim of the respondent, as rightly observed by the writ court, there was no dispute as regards the authenticity and correctness of the jail certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, produced as Exhibit-P1 in W.P.(C) No.36191/2018 dated 20.07.1972. Perusal of ExhibitP1 extract of convict register shows that the case in which the husband of the respondent was convicted and sentenced is the one in relation to C.C. No.238/1124 ME on the file of the Divisional First Class magistrate's Court, Alappuzha for offenses under Section 9(5) of the Travancore Emergency powers Act, 1122. That apart, going through the letter dated 4.3.2014, produced as Exhibit-P8, it
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-7-
could be deduced that the State Government has verified the genuineness of the extract of Exhibit-P1 convict register through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, and he had certified it to be genuine.
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-8-
genuine and hence, his case is positively recommended for grant of SSS Pension. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge, merely because the State Government has not reiterated the factual aspects in Exhibit-P12, cannot be a sole ground for rejecting the claim of the respondent.
“6. The Scheme was introduced with the object of providing grants of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. It has to be kept in mind that millions of masses of this country had participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any scheme at the relevant time. It has also to be kept in mind that in the partition of the country most of the citizens who suffered imprisonment were handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. The problem of getting the record from a foreign country is very cumbersome and expensive. Keeping in mind the object of the Scheme, the authorities concerned are required that in appreciating the Scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rational and not a technical approach is required to be
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-9-
adopted. It has also to be kept in mind that the claimants of the Scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their life for the country. This Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari case [1993 Supp (3) SCC 2] observed: (SCC pp. 7-8, para 9)
“The object in making the said relaxation was not to reward or compensate for the sacrifices made in the freedom struggle. The object was to honour and where it was necessary, also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact, many of those who do not have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it, since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with which they plunged in the freedom struggle. The spirit of the Scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind of a programme of compensation. Yet that may be the result if the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever the date the application is made. The Scheme should retain its high objective with which it was motivated. It should not further be forgotten that now its benefit is made available irrespective of the income limit. Secondly, and this is equally important to note, since we are by this decision making the benefit of the Scheme available irrespective of the date on which the application is made, it would not be advisable to extend the benefit retrospectively. Lastly, the pension under the present Scheme is not the only benefit made available to the freedom fighters or their dependents. The preference in employment, allotment of accommodation and in admission to schools and colleges to their kith and kin etc. are also the other benefits which have been made available to them for quite sometime now.”
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-10-
The Court categorically mentioned that the pension under the Scheme should be made payable from the date on which the application is made whether it is accompanied by necessary proof of eligibility or not.
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-11-
intended to give the benefit to the sufferers in the freedom movement. The contradictions and discrepancies, as noticed hereinabove, cannot be held to be material which could be made the basis of depriving the appellant of his right to get the pension. The case of the appellant has been disposed of by ignoring the mandate of law and the Scheme. The impugned order also appears to have been passed with a biased and closed mind, completely ignoring the verdict of this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari's case [1993 Supp (3) SCC 2]. We further feel that after granting the pension to the appellant, the respondents were not justified in rejecting his claim on the basis of material which already existed, justifying the grant of pension in his favour. The appellant has, unnecessarily, been dragged to litigation for no fault of his. The High Court has completely ignored its earlier judgments in Mohan Singh v. Union of India [CWP No. 3790 of 1994 (HC)] decided on 1-6- 1995 and CWP No. 14442 of 1995 decided on 11-12-1995.
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-12-
India v. Janakidas reported in 2010 (1) KLT SN 79 (C. No.95) held that no individual citizen can be denied pensionary benefits under the scheme on any ground referable to delay by the State Government in forwarded papers to the Union of India. Relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
“7. We may notice that even among the fundamental duties of citizens, enumerated in Article 51A of the Constitution, particularly Clauses (b) and (d) thereof, every citizen of India is duty bound to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom; and to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so. We are considering the case of a person who, though now no more, had done what is cherished in Article 51A of the Constitution, long before India became free. Therefore, in fact, there is no ground even for the Union of India to show that any delay that the State Government had committed in forwarding the papers should be considered against the interest of the petitioner for granting pension under the SSSP Scheme. The State Government and the Union Government are the executive limbs of the People of India as a Republican Nation and no individual citizen can be denied pensionary benefits referable to the SSSP Scheme, 1980 on any ground referable to the delay by the State Government in forwarding the papers to the Union of India. If such grounds were to be accepted, in our view, that will not serve, but defeat, the purpose sought to be achieved by the Scheme in question. We are also of the view that, what is indicative as the prime concept of the requirement of providing pension under the SSSP Scheme to the freedom fighter and family members, is part of the
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-13-
process by which the Nation follows the noble ideals which inspired those involved in the struggle for freedom.”
“6. Having perused the above materials on record, at the very outset, we wish to refer to the observations made by this Court in regard to the grant of freedom fighters' pension in the decision in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India [(2001) 8 SCC 8]. In para 7 of the judgment, this Court has highlighted the manner in which such claims are to be considered for grant of freedom fighters' pension. It will be worthwhile to make a reference to the said passage before expressing our conclusion with regard to the claim of the appellant's husband in the case on hand.
“7. The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As the object of the Scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the Scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by the Scheme had suffered for the country about half-a-century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-14-
imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the Scheme. The case of the claimants under this Scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touchstone of the test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence.”
(emphasis added)
W. A. No. 1249 of 2019
-15-
In the result, appeals fail and accordingly, they are dismissed.”
25.08.2022 in W.A. Nos.122 & 1691 of 2019 would govern this writ appeal as well.
In view of the above, this writ appeal is dismissed.
Arrears of the SSS Pension as directed, has to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased respondent, impleaded as per order dated 08.12.2022 in I. A. No. 1 of 2020 in W. A. No. 1249 of 2019, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
Eb
///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court judgments awarding freedom fighter pensions to the respondents should be set aside by the present writ appeal filed by the Union of India.
Whether the standard of proof and approbation for granting SSS pension requires a liberal approach rather than technical scrutiny.
Whether there are any jurisdictional errors or legal infirmities in the High Court's order granting pension to the freedom fighter respondents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurdial Singh v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶51
[2001] 8 SCC 8 · Who else cites this
Mukund Lal BhandariRelied on¶51
[1993 Supp (3) SCC 2] · Who else cites this
Union of India v. JanakidasRelied on¶52
2010 (1) KLT SN 79
Kamalbai Sinkar v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶53
(2012) 11 SCC 754 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India
N.K. Goplan
Smt. Chellamma (Prasanna)
Smt. Lalithambika
Smt. Kanakambika
Shri Prasean
S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court