IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30935 of 2005(G)
1. CHANDY OUSEPH, (C.C.JOSEPH),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. IUNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SMT.K.M.BEENA
For Respondent :SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :09/04/2008
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
=========================
WP(C).No.30935 of 2005-G.
=========================
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This is a case where in spite of the recommendation by the
State Government, the Central Government has rejected the
application for grant of SSS Pension by a short order Ext.P8. It
was mainly rejected for the reason that it is not supported by
official records and that the petitioner had mentioned that the case
involving him was subsequently withdrawn.
2. The petitioner was a prominent freedom fighter who
had actively participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar struggle.
Ext.P1 is the certificate issued by another prominent freedom
fighter. The petitioner was an accused in case No.PE.5/122 of
Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. He went underground in
1946 and remained there till January, 1950 pursuant to a warrant
of arrest issued against him. After independence the case was
WP(C).No.30935 of 2005-G. -: 2 :-
withdrawn resulting in the end of the suffering of the petitioner.
The petitioner was granted pension under the State Scheme as per
Ext.P3 for participation in the same struggle. After the Punnapra-
Vayalar struggle was recognised for grant of SSS Pension he made
an application on 15.7.1998. This was recommended by the State
as evidenced by Ext.P6. It shows that the District Collector and the
District Advisory Committee have recommended his case for SSS
Pension. Ext.P7 is the copy of the NARC issued by the criminal
court.
3. Along with Ext.P6 the petitioner had produced an
affidavit. The withdrawal of the case against him is clearly after
the independence and that cannot be taken as a ground to reject
the application. His specific case is that there was a warrant
against him in connection with case No.PE.5/122. In the absence of
official records the personal knowledge certificate as well as valid
NARC along with the recommendation by the State Government
can be considered by the first respondent to sanction pension. All
these aspects have not been considered in Ext.8. Therefore Ext.P8
WP(C).No.30935 of 2005-G. -: 3 :-
is quashed. The first respondent will reconsider the matter after
assessing the various materials produced by the petitioner and
forwarded by the State including the recommendation by the State
Government. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment
by the first respondent. In the event of sanction of pension the
claim for arrears from the date of receipt of the application shall
also be considered by the first respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
kvs/-