IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 1868 of 2008(S)
1. BHARGAVI,W/O. VELU MADHAVAN,AGED 79
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MADHUKAR GUPTHA,WORKING AS SECREATARY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
For Respondent :SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :19/03/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.O.(C) No.1868 of 2008-S
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein is an applicant for grant of Swathanthratha
Sainik Samman Pension. After this Contempt Petition was filed, the
petitioner has impleaded the present Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi as additional respondent. It is alleged that the original
respondent and the additional respondent did not bear in mind the directions
issued by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment while rejecting the
application.
2. Annexure A1 is the judgment rendered in W.P.(C)
No.25817/2006 wherein the challenge was against Ext.P9 order by which
the application for pension was rejected. The State Government did not
recommend the application, which aspect was considered by this Court in
the judgment. Ext.P6 is the copy of the certificate issued by the
Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, showing the period of
imprisonment of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, this Court
directed the Government to forward a fresh verification-cum-entitlement
report after considering Ext.P6.
COC 18678/08 2
3. In the affidavit filed by the respondent, it is pointed out that
pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the State Government
forwarded the verification report based on which the claim of the petitioner
was rejected by a speaking order dated 4.2.2009. In the copy of the jail
certificate, the period of imprisonment is shown as 4 months and 26 days
and that the same is an unverified document and therefore it cannot be
accepted. The State Government also reported that the name of the
petitioner’s husband does not figure in case No.CC 8/1124 ME which was
reported by the District Collector.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to the
acceptability of Ext.P6 report, already findings have been rendered by this
Court in Annexure A1 judgment and therefore the rejection of the
application is clearly in violation of the findings in Annexure A1 judgment.
Therefore, the respondent has committed contempt of this Court.
5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted
that the findings are mainly based on the verification-cum-entitlement
report of the State Government and the remedy of the petitioner is to
challenge the order in a fresh writ petition.
COC 18678/08 3
6. In Annexure A1 judgment this Court has referred to Ext.P6, the
certificate issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison,
Thiruvananthapuram. It is mentioned in para 3 of the judgment that the
original petitioner was convicted and sentenced to six months by the First
Class Magistrate, Cherthala in C.C.No.8/124 and he had undergone the
sentence and was released on 8.11.1124 ME on expiry of the sentence. But
still, the respondent has now found that the certificate is unacceptable
relying on the verification-cum-entitlement report of the State Government.
Copy of the report of the State Government is not available herein, to
appreciate its contents. But it is mentioned in the report of the State
Government that the genuineness of Ext.P6 certificate has been certified by
the Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram.
7. The decision of the respondent is on the merits of the matter. Of
course, this Court had directed the Government to pass a fresh order after
the State Government forwards a fresh verification-cum-entitlement report
showing the recommendation. It cannot therefore be said that there is
willful disobedience of the judgment of this Court compelling action against
the respondent or the additional respondent.
COC 18678/08 4
8. The petitioner’s remedy is therefore, to file a writ petition
challenging the order now passed by the Government of India. Leaving
open the said remedy, the C.O.(C) is closed.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/