Writ appeal filed by Central and State Governments against an order awarding freedom fighter pension. Bench affirmed Single Judge's decision upholding petitioner's eligibility based on Freedom Fighter pension history and conviction records.
Writ appeal dismissed. Earlier order quashing rejection and directing sanction of family pension with arrears upheld.
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.
W.A No.2094 of 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WA NO. 2094 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 12376/2010 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTER'S DIVISION,LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2 THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTER'S DIVISION,LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. BY ADVS.
SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT:
1 A.V.DEVAKI W/O K.KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, KUNJUMBIDUKKA HOUSE,KANCHILERY, CHERIKODE, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR - 670631
ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS FOR R1 SHRI.K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A No.2094 of 2017
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2022
SHAJI P.CHALY,J
Captioned writ appeal is filed by the Union of India and one of its officials, who are respondent Nos.1 & 2 in W.P.© No.12376 of 2010, challenging the judgement of a learned Single Judge dated 16th December, 2016.
W.A No.2094 of 2017
3
also an admitted fact that while recognising the same, the Central Government requested the State Government to call for applications from the participants of the movements after verification of documents produced in support of the claimed sufferings along with suitable recommendation of the State Government about the entitlement of the pension in accordance with the provisions of the SSSP Scheme, 1980. Petitioner's husband had submitted an application and it was forwarded by the Government as per Exhibit P6 dated 20.7.1999 along with Exhibit P1 extract of Under Trial Prisoner Register of Central Prison, Cannanore. The application was duly forwarded by the Secretary to Government, General Administration Department of the State of Kerala. Since no action was taken, the petitioner has approached this Court and by Exhibit P7 judgement dated 13.8.2009 in W.P.© No.23184/2009, this Court directed the respondents to take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner's husband. Thereafter, Exhibit P8 order was passed by the Government on 4.2.2010 rejecting the application. The objection of the State Government was that the primary evidence furnished by the petitioner was not acceptable on account of the discrepancies and further that, there was no record based secondary evidence along with a valid Non-availability of Records Certificate from the State Government.
W.A No.2094 of 2017
4
regarding the difference in the name of the petitioner in the application of her husband and in the application submitted by her in order to reject the application. It is thus challenging Exhibit P8 order that the writ petition was filed.
“8. The petitioner has produced Ext.P1 extract issued from the Central Prison, Kannur which is the extract of under trial Prisoner register relating to the imprisonment under went by her husband during the period from 28.01.1947 to 29.10.1947, after the case was committed to Sessions Judge, North Malabar. The discrepancy pointed out with respect to this extract is regarding the date of conviction entered as 29X-47 saying that there was over writing with respect to the month of conviction shown in digit written there. When the extract of the register maintained in the jail is certified by the Superintendent of Prisons and it is produced, that cannot be rejected saying that it is secondary evidence and the respondents were not right in seeking further
W.A No.2094 of 2017
5
evidence to support secondary evidence. It is a case where respondents themselves had sanctioned pension to the petitioner's husband in the year 1974 and withdrawn in the year 1978. The fact that the said pension was withdrawn on the ground that the Kavumbaii movement was not recognised for SSS pension itself shows that the respondents were already convinced of the eligibility of the petitioner's husband for pension.
In the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P8 and direct the respondents to sanction family pension under the SSS Pension scheme to the petitioner on the basis of the application submitted and
W.A No.2094 of 2017
6
forwarded as per Ext.P6 by her husband and to disburse the pension along with arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.”
and perused the pleadings and materials on record.
W.A No.2094 of 2017
7
from the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the copy of the said judgment was handed over to the counsel for respondents and they have also verified the genuineness of the inclusion of the petitioner's husband as 33rd accused in the judgment. It was taking into account the facts and circumstances and the available documents that the learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusions. In fact, even though various contentions are raised in the writ petition that petitioner's husband was not entitled to get the SSS Pension, we are of the view that in view of the relevant and appropriate documents relied upon by the writ petitioner and accepted by the learned Single Judge, we have no hesitation to say that the appellants have not made out a case of jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities, justifying our interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Needless to say, writ appeal fails, accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE
smv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's order allowing pension is maintainable?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India
Under Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs
A.V. Devaki
Principal Secretary to Government of Kerala
S.Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
