Dismissed

Union of India v. P.v.Thankappan

Kerala HC15 Nov 2022WA/2111/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two-judge bench dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Union of India challenging a Single Judge's order granting SSS Pension to a freedom fighter. The court upheld the Single Judge's finding that there was no manifest error despite concerns regarding certifiers, noting the petitioner is 89.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; directions of writ court to be complied with within the time frame.

Union of India Vs P.v.Thankappan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶7

WA NO. 2111 OF 2017

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 12.4.2017 IN WPC 13649/2013

¶9

OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶10

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY ADV SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC

¶13

RESPONDENTS / PETITIONER:

¶14

1P.V.THANKAPPAN
POZHIKKAL VEEDU, THUMPOLY P.O,ALAPPUZHA 688 008
*ADDL.R2THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
*ADDL.R3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ALAPPUZHA. (
*(ADDL.R2 AND R3 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
04/07/2019 IN THE WRIT APPEAL)

¶15

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.K.SATHISH FOR R1
SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER(BY
ORDER)
SRI.TEKCHAND V., GOVT.PLEADER FOR ADDL.R2 &
ADDL.R3

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶17

WA 2111/2017

¶18

¶19

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J. & SHAJI.P.CHALY, J.

¶20

W.A. No.2111 of 2017

¶21

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2022

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Manikumar, C.J.

¶24

At the outset, it is made clear that the issue in the appeal regarding SSS Pension Scheme has already been decided by this Court as per the judgment dated 18.2.2022 in W.A.No.249/2022.

¶25

Being aggrieved by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.13649 of 2013 dated 12.4.2017, quashing Exhibit P12 order and directing the competent Authority of the respondent to accept Ext.P11 recommendation of the Government of Kerala and issue appropriate orders under the provisions of the SSS Pension Scheme to grant the eligible pension to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of

¶26

¶27

WA 2111/2017

¶28

receipt of a copy of the judgment, instant writ appeal is filed.

¶29

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder:

¶30

The petitioner was a freedom fighter who had actively participated in the Punnapra Vayalar Movement, during the freedom struggle. On account of his participation in the said struggle, an arrest warrant was issued against him by the then Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha in case No.P.E.7/1122 ME, and in order to evade the arrest, he had gone underground for a period of about one year and as such he is entitled to get the benefit of SSS Pension.

¶31

Petitioner is the recipient of the Kerala Freedom Fighters' Pension (State Pension) as evidenced by Ext P1. Since the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement was recognized as a part of the National

¶32

WA 2111/2017

¶33

¶34

Freedom Struggle for the purpose of grant of SSS Pension w.e.f 20-1-1998, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application to the respondent, along with Ext.P3 Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by the prominent freedom fighter Sri.Kunjan Sukumaran. Thereafter, he had also produced Ext.P4 Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri.Narayanan Ramankutty, as directed by the District Collector, Alappuzha. Since Ext.P2 application was returned for want of necessary documents, he approached this Court by filing O.P No.12355/2003, which was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment dated 11.10.2006 directing that in the event of the petitioner approaching the District Collector with the required documents, the matter will be duly forwarded by the District Collector to the State Government and thereafter the State Government will take up the matter with the first

¶35

WA 2111/2017

¶36

¶37

respondent. Subject to the petitioner complying with the requirements appropriate action in the matter will be taken by the respondent within a period of one month and the first respondent within another two months.

¶38

Pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, he had produced Ext.P6 Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC) from the CJM Court, Alappuzha and Ext.P7 Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by the prominent freedom fighter Sri.H.K. Chakrapani.

¶39

Thereafter, the respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P8 order for want of a valid Non-availability of Records Certificate from the State Government. Aggrieved by that, he again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.15877/2008, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P9

¶40

¶41

WA 2111/2017

¶42

judgment dated 28.2.2012, in terms of the judgment in W.A.No.382/2010 and connected cases, which directed the State to process the applications, including issuance of Non-availability of Records Certificate, and to cure the defects, if any, and to forward the same to the Central Government. The Central Government was also directed to dispose of the applications in accordance with the procedure contemplated.

¶43

Although the State Government duly recommended the petitioner’s claim for SSS pension along with valid Non-availability of Records Certificate in the prescribed manner as per Ext.P11, the respondent rejected his claim with a biased and closed mind in an arbitrary manner completely ignoring the basic principles/objectives of the SSS Pension Scheme.

¶44

Union of India has chosen to deny the benefit of

¶45

¶46

WA 2111/2017

¶47

pension to the petitioner under the SSS Pension Scheme on various grounds but primarily disbelieving the records and documents submitted along with the recommendation of the Government of Kerala.

¶48

However, adverting to the rival contentions, writ court found that Ext.P12 order has been issued without taking into account relevant factors. As is discernible from Ext.P11, the recommendation of Government of Kerala is based on the Non-availability of Records Certificate from a competent Court as well as the Personal Knowledge Certificates of two individuals. The Authority in Ext.P12 admitted the genuineness of the Non-availability of the Records Certificate but seemed to have suspected the Personal Knowledge Certificates issued by Sri.Kunjan Sukumaran and Sri.H.K.Chakrapani. Their suspicion appears to be underpinned on the fact that on an earlier occasion, Government of Kerala had found, in certain other cases, that such Personal Knowledge Certificates had been

¶49

¶50

WA 2111/2017

¶51

issued by these two individuals in an indiscriminate manner and that the Government of Kerala had not accepted it. However, by a subsequent verification in its proper perspective, Government of Kerala had concluded, as is discernible from Ext.P11 recommendation itself, that the Personal Knowledge Certificates had been issued by these two individuals for cogent reasons and Government of Kerala had also subsequently recognized both Sri.Kunjan Sukumaran and H.K.Chakrapani to have participated in the freedom struggle and spent long terms in incarceration. Therefore, the suspicion on the Personal Knowledge Certificates issued by those two individuals is inexplicable.

¶52

Writ court found that the competent Authority ought to have considered the recommendation of the Government in a positive manner and to have provided the benefits to eligible persons rather than denying. This is more so because the petitioner is already 89 years of age and any further delay may make it superfluous even if such

¶53

¶54

WA 2111/2017

¶55

pension is finally granted.

¶56

The directions issued by the learned single Judge

¶57

in the impugned judgment are assailed on the grounds raised, in particular that the SSS Pension was granted to Sri.H.K. Chakrapani, by giving the benefit of doubt and that he has issued a number of personal knowledge certificate indiscriminately.

¶58

Contention that the said Sri.Chakrapani had been sanctioned SSS Pension by the Central Government, only on benefit of doubt, is not acceptable, for the reason that, he has been found eligible for grant of SSS Pension.

¶59

If the appellant has a contention that the said Sri.Chakrapani had issued personal knowledge certificates to many persons indiscriminately, it is for the competent Authorities to examine only the genuineness of the said certificates and cannot at any rate, rule out his competency, on personal knowledge to issue certificates. Merely because he has issued number of personal

¶60

¶61

WA 2111/2017

¶62

knowledge certificates, he cannot be said to be an ineligible person to issue a certificate, or in other words, to hold that he is an ineligible certifier in accordance with the Scheme.

¶63

In the light of the above, we are of the view that there is no manifest error in the impugned judgment, warranting interference. Writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Writ petitioner is 89 years old. Directions issued by the writ court be complied with within the time frame. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶64

 Sd/-

¶65

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

SHAJI.P.CHALY JUDGE

¶68

jg

Union of India v. P.v.Thankappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. P.v.Thankappan

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

Dr. K.K.Vijayan, Vs the Chancellor

Dr. G.Sadasivan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs State

Union of India Vs K.Gomathy

State of Kerala Vs Dr. E.C. Raveendran

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala