Allowed

A. Gopalan Nair, v. the Union of India

Kerala HC11 Sept 2023WP(C)/1701/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking Central Pension rejected by Centre for lack of State Pension eligible as of 2002. Court set aside State Government rejections finding incongruity with subsequent grant of State Pension, directing State to reconsider claim; if State pension is granted, petitioner may approach Centre.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P5 set aside; liberty reserved to approach State Govt within one month for reconsideration; upon approval by State, liberty to approach Central Govt within two months.

A. Gopalan Nair, Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 20TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1701 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

A. GOPALAN NAIR,
AGED 87 YEARS

¶8

S/O.MAVILA RAMAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT KARIAKOCHI,
POST HARIPURAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.
SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
SUKARNAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, 2 ND FLOOR, NDCC-11,JAI SINGH ROAD, PARLIAMENT ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FREEDOM FIGHTERS PENSION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110001

¶13

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT (FFPB), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶14

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KASARGOD, CIVIL STATION VIDYANAGAR, KASARGOD, PIN - 671123

¶15

BY ADVS.
MANU S. DSG OF INDIA
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR
SRI.P.S.APPU - GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 1701 OF 2023 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner is an octogenarian, who claims to have

¶20

participated in the Goa Liberation Movement (GLM) during the year 1954-55 - which is an approved “National Freedom Struggle”, for the purpose of grant of pension, under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (“SSS Scheme”). He is aggrieved because his application for the same has been rejected by Government of India through Ext.P4, solely saying that he has not obtained the State Pension for participation in the said freedom struggle; but that said benefit had been rejected by Government of Kerala, through Ext.P5, not because he has not so participated, but on account of certain hyper technical reasons. He thus prays that Exts.P4 and P5 be set aside and the competent respondents be directed to reconsider his claim and grant him pension forthwith.

¶21

Sri.Sukarnan – learned counsel for the petitioner, asserted that Ext.P4 order of Government of India is untenable because the petitioner has already been granted State Pension from the year 2015; further explaining that he has been denied it with effect from 01.08.2002 only because his application was stated to be not in its proper format and since he could not prove his incarceration properly through cogent documents. He submitted that, therefore, the reasons

¶22

WP(C) NO. 1701 OF 2023 3

¶23

given in Ext.P4 are totally untenable; and that, in any event, Ext.P5 order of Government of Kerala would not constrain the competent Authority of the Government of India in granting him eligible pension.

¶24

In response Sri.K.S.Prenjith Kumar – learned Central Government Counsel, submitted that the “SSS Scheme” contains certain very specified criteria to be qualified by the applicant; and that, in this case, the petitioner, not having obtained State Pension with effect from 01.08.2002, cannot be considered for grant of pension by the Central Government. He submitted that these aspects have already been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of India & Others v. Sitakant S.Dubhashi & Another [Civil Appeal No.987 of 2020]; and that; as long as the petitioner has not been able to comply with all the criteria in this Scheme, he cannot maintain this writ petition.

¶25

Sri.P.S.Appu – learned Government Pleader affirmed that petitioner has been paid State Pension from the year 2015; but that he was denied it with effect from 01.08.2002 for various reasons as have been stated in Ext.P5 especially that he had not produced documents to establish that he had been incarcerated for a six months period, as mandated under the “SSS Scheme”. He, however, conceded that the petitioner has been offered State Pension from 2015; and submitted

¶26

WP(C) NO. 1701 OF 2023 4

¶27

that, therefore, if the petitioner is to approach the State Government with an appropriate application, accompanied by all relevant documents, his claim can be reconsidered particularly taking note of the fact that he is already 87 years in age.

¶28

When I evaluate and consider the afore submissions it is without doubt that Sitakant S.Dubhashi (Supra) renders it indubitable that if it is only all the criteria under the “SSS Scheme” are complied with and qualified, can an applicant obtain benefits under the same.

¶29

As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner is admitted to have been granted State Pension from the year 2015, but as per the “SSS Scheme”, only those who are eligible for the pension under the State for participation in the “GLM Phase II” before 01.08.2002, would be eligible for claiming it from Government of India. When the said Scheme is without reservation and does not brook any relaxation, I am of the view that petitioner cannot impugn Ext.P4, unless he is able to obtain State Pension with effect from 01.08.2002.

¶30

That said, though Ext.P5 order reiterates that the petitioner had not produced sufficient documents to establish his incarceration, it does not deal with or explain how he was then offered State Pension

¶31

WP(C) NO. 1701 OF 2023 5

¶32

from 2015.

¶33

In the afore perspective, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P5; with a consequential liberty being reserved to the petitioner to approach the Government of Kerala with an appropriate representation, accompanied by all relevant details and documents; and if this done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall be considered by its competent Authority, adverting to his specific contention that he had participated in the “GLM Phase II” Freedom Struggle, thus being entitled to State Pension with effect from 01.08.2002. A final decision in this regard shall be taken, after affording the petitioner or his representative, an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date on which he makes the afore representation.

¶34

On the Government of Kerala taking a decision as ordered above, and if it is in favour of the petitioner, then he will be at full liberty to approach the competent Authority of the Government of India for Central Pension; in which event, same shall be considered de hors Ext.P4 and adverting to all relevant and germane aspects as presented then. The necessary action in this regard, leading to disbursement of eligible pension to the petitioner, shall be completed within a period of

¶35

WP(C) NO. 1701 OF 2023 6

¶36

two months thereafter.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

MC/11.9

¶41

WP(C) NO. 1701 OF 2023 7

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1701/2023

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) NO. 320/2015/GEN ADM
DATED 04/12/2015
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED 21/7/2016
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/11/2020
IN WP(C ) NO. 3862/2020
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 9/2/2021
ISSUED BY 1 ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO. FFPA 2/33-
2017 PAD DATED 15/11/2022 ISSUED BY 3 RD
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a)True copy of the letter F.No.8/10/99-FF(P)
dated 17.02.2023

A. Gopalan Nair, v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Gopalan Nair, v. the 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

Konuparamban Traders Vs the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

M/S. Panos Apparel Industries Vs State Bank of India

Jayesh Vs K.N. Prakashan

Radhakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Deepak S.V Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Anandan Vs the District Collector