High Court Kerala High Court

Janardhanan vs The Union Of India Represented on 23 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Janardhanan vs The Union Of India Represented on 23 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2434 of 2007(M)


1. JANARDHANAN, AGED 80,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF, ADDL.CGSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :23/07/2008

 O R D E R
                 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

                   ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
                      W.P.(C). No.2434/2007-M
                   ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

                Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008

                           J U D G M E N T

The writ petitioner, who was an applicant for the

Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, is aggrieved by the rejection

of the said application by the first respondent as per Ext.P11.

2. In Ext.P11, the main reasons stated for the rejection are

that, there is no acceptable primary evidence, there is no valid

Non-Availability of Records Certificate (N.A.R.C) from the State

Government etc. and finally that the State Government has not

recommended the application.

3. In this case, it is seen that the petitioner is a recipient of

the State Freedom Fighters’ pension as evident from Ext.P2.

Ext.P4 is a Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri.Kunjan

Sukumaran, who is a recipient of the Central pension, which is

evidenced by Ext.P6. He had earlier approached this Court by

filing a writ petition No.21986/2005 seeking disposal of his

application for S.S.S pension as well as a direction to the State

Government to consider Exts.P7 and P8. Ext.P7 is a further

W.P.(C).NO.2434/2007-M
-:2:-

representation of the petitioner enclosing therewith Personal

Knowledge Certificate of Sri.H.K.Chakrapani, order granting S.S.S

pension to Sri.Chakrapani and extract of convict register relating

to Sri.Chakrapani, the true copies of which are produced herein as

Exts.P9 to P10. But, while that writ petition was pending, Ext.P11

happened to be passed. Therefore, the State Government had no

occasion to consider the sufficiency of Exts.P7 and P8. The said

writ petition was closed in the light of Ext.P11 and the present writ

petition has been filed challenging the same.

4. In this case the petitioner has produced Ext.P12 which

is a true copy of the report forwarded by the Tahsildar,

Ambalapuzha, to the District Collector, Alappuzha, recommending

his application for State pension. It is clear from Ext.P12 that the

petitioner had gone underground pursuant to the warrant issued in

connection with the Punnapra-Vayalar struggle. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the same will justify his

claim for S.S.S Pension.

5. Ext.P11 order passed by the Central Government shows

that the State Government had earlier forwarded a letter dated

05/11/2005, stating that the petitioner’s application for S.S.S

pension is not recommended. At that time, only the Personal

W.P.(C).NO.2434/2007-M
-:3:-

Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri.Kunjan Sukumaran was

available with the State Government. Ext.P7 is dated 23/01/2006

and Ext.P8 is dated 19/01/2006. Apparently, they were not

considered by the State Government, which resulted in not

forwarding a proper recommendation.

6. In the light of the evidence now produced by the

petitioner, I find that the matter will have to be directed to be re-

considered by the respondents herein. Therefore, Ext.P11 is

quashed. The petitioner will forward a true copy of Ext.P12 to the

second respondent within three weeks from today along with a

copy of this judgment. The second respondent will consider

Exts.P7 and P8 (Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by

Sri.H.K.Chakrapani) and forward a fresh Verification-cum-

Entitlement Report showing the recommendation, after perusing

Ext.P12 and the relevant file relating to the same, to the Central

Government. The same shall be done within two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The first respondent

shall pass fresh orders on receipt of fresh recommendation from

the State Government and in the light of the same within two

months thereafter. In the event of granting pension, the

entitlement of the petitioner for payment of arrears from the date

W.P.(C).NO.2434/2007-M
-:4:-

of receipt of Ext.P1 application dated 30/04/1998 will also be

considered. The writ petition is allowed as above.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
Judge
ms