IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9107 of 2008(H)
1. K.THANKAMMA, AGED 68,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
For Respondent :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :30/08/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.9107/2008-H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the widow of late Shri.N.A.Sudhakaran
who was a freedom fighter. It is averred in the writ
petition that the petitioner’s husband had actively
participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar Struggle and,
therefore, he was arrayed as an accused by the police in
Case No.P.E.10/1122 of the Special Magistrate Court,
Alappuzha. Since non-bailable warrant was issued against
him, he absconded from 30/10/1946 to 08/09/1948 and at last
he was declared as an absconder by the court. The
petitioner’s late husband was granted pension under the
Kerala Freedom Fighters’ Pension Rules as evident from
Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is a copy of the application for grant of
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. Ext.P3 is a certificate
issued by the Sub Inspector of Police after conducting
local enquiry wherein it is certified that he has
participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar Struggle and a warrant
had been issued under P.E.10/46. It is also mentioned that
the relevant records are not available now.
2. Initially, the application was rejected by Ext.P4
stating that the State Government has not recommended the
application. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband
W.P.(C). No.9107/2008
-:2:-
approached this Court by filing O.P.No.23991/2002. By
Ext.P5, the Central Government rejected the application
which was under challenge in W.P.(C).No.26813/2003. At
that point of time the petitioner’s husband had produced
the Personal Knowledge Certificates from Shri C.G.Sadasivan
and Shri V.K.Viswanathan. The petitioner’s husband again
produced the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Shri
H.K.Chakrapani another freedom fighter a copy of which is
produced as Ext.P6 and, Ext.P7 is the copy of the convict
register relating to the certifier. Ext.P8 is the copy of
the order granting S.S.S Pension to Shri H.K.Chakrapani.
It appears that the State Government again did not
recommend the application for S.S.S Pension and by relying
upon Government letter No.65269/FFP A2/2005/GAD dated
02/09/2005, Ext.P10 order has been passed.
3. The main reason for rejection of the application
is that the District Collector in his report has stated
that “as per the available copy of the Judgment, kept in
the Collectorate, regarding case No.PE.10/1122(1946), the
name of the petitioner’s husband is not seen included”.
Accordingly, it is pointed out that the certificate of Shri
H.K.Chakrapani is not acceptable.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the report made by the District Collector cannot be
W.P.(C). No.9107/2008
-:3:-
supported since what was available and referred to therein
was not a copy of the Judgment in Case No.PE.10/1122(1946).
It is pointed out that in other connected cases [W.P.(C).
Nos.31178/2004 and 12456/2007], wherein the very same
reason was shown, this Court considered the matter
elaborately by Ext.P13 Judgment. My attention was invited
to the relevant findings therein to show that what was
available and referred to by the District Collector is not
the Judgment in Case No.PE.10/1122(1946) but only an order
transferring the case from Sessions Court to Additional
Temp.Sessions Judge Thiruvananthapuram. It is pointed out
that the list of accused therein is not exhaustive as only
those who faced trial alone are listed in that document.
In the cause title of the document, the names of 25 accused
have been shown. This is considered in paragraph (5)
onwards in Ext.P13 Judgment. It was held by this Court
that the said document cannot be treated as the copy of the
Judgment. In fact, in the above writ petitions, the State
Government had filed counter affidavit with reference to
the said document and on an appreciation of all aspects,
this Court had held that the approach made by the State
Government is not correct. It was held that the document
relied upon by the Statement as a copy of the Judgment was
not a true copy of a Judgment. The petitioner is entitled
W.P.(C). No.9107/2008
-:4:-
for the benefit of the said finding. It is also pointed
out that the State Government, later on recommended the
case of the applicant in W.P.(C).No.12456/2007, namely, one
Smt.Elizabath Varghese and Ext.P14 is the copy of the
recommendation forwarded by the State Government to the
Central Government. It is pointed out that the said
applicant is now a recipient of S.S.S Pension.
5. Herein also the petitioner is relying upon, two
other documents namely, Ext.P3 certificate issued by the
Sub Inspector of Police stating that there was a warrant in
Case No.PE.10/1122(1946) against the late husband of the
petitioner as well as Ext.P12 a copy of the report, in the
form prescribed, submitted by the Tahsildar to the District
Collector, when the application of the late husband of the
petitioner was processed for granting pension under the
Kerala Freedom Fighters’ Pension Rules. In Column (1) it
is clearly certified that “he has participated in Punnapra-
Vayalar Struggle and he has gone underground for a period
of two years on consequent of the arrest was issued against
him”. Evidently, that was accepted and by Ext.P1 pension
was sanctioned to him. Apart from these two documents, he
had produced the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by
Shri H.K.Chakrapani and, therefore, these three have to be
independently assessed along with the N.A.R.C from the
W.P.(C). No.9107/2008
-:5:-
C.J.M Court. It is also submitted that Ext.P9 is the copy
of the N.A.R.C of the C.J.M. Court, Alappuzha.
6. In that view of the matter, Ext.P10 order of the
Government is quashed. The matter will be reconsidered by
the State Government and a proper recommendation will be
forwarded afresh, after considering Exts.P3, P6, P9 and
P12, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this Judgment and, on receipt of the fresh
communication of the State Government, the application for
S.S.S Pension will be considered afresh and order will be
passed by the Central Government within a further period of
three months. The State Government will bestow attention
to the relevant findings in Ext.P13 Judgment as well as the
findings rendered above and there will be a proper
assessment of the eligibility of the deceased Shri
Sudhakaran and the petitioner for the grant of pension and,
thereafter, forward appropriate recommendation to the
Central Government as directed above.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms