IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26455 of 2005(Y)
1. M.POOKUNJU, SHAJAHAN MANZIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE TAHSILAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :30/07/2008
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.26455 of 2005
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who claims to be a freedom fighter
applied for freedom fighter’s pension under the scheme framed
by the Government of Kerala. The application was admittedly
submitted in the year 2001, long after the nation attained
independence. By Ext.P5 order passed on 10.4.2003, the
District Collector, Kollam rejected the application. The petitioner
challenged Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.29988 of 2003. By Ext.P1
judgment delivered on 18.5.2005, this Court quashed Ext.P5
and directed the respondents to process the petitioner’s
application afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon within
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
It was held that the reasons stated in Ext.P5 to reject the
petitioner’s request for grant of freedom fighter’s pension are
not sustainable. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, the State
Government considered the petitioner’s case afresh and passed
Ext.P6 order dated 23.7.2005 rejecting his application for
W.P.(C)26455/2005 2
freedom fighter’s pension. By Ext.P7, the District Collector,
Kollam communicated the decision of the Government in Ext.P6
to the petitioner. The petitioner has, in this writ petition
challenged Exts.P6 and P7 and prayed for the following reliefs:-
a) issue a writ of certiorari or other writ or
order or direction calling for the papers leading
upto Ext.P7 and quash Exts.P6 and P7;
b) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or
order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to
process the application of the petitioner as
directed in Ext.P1 judgment; without any delay
and pass orders granting freedom fighters
pension to the petitioner under the scheme
framed by the Government of Kerala.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the two
grounds stated in Ext.P6 to reject the application submitted by the
petitioner are not sustainable in law. The learned counsel contended
that certificates similar to Ext.P2 and P2(a) submitted by persons who
are drawing freedom fighter’s pension have been accepted by this
Court in Exts.P3 and P4 judgments. It was further contended that the
date given in Exts.P2 and P2(a) with reference to the English calendar
year was mistakenly entered when the date given in the Malayalam
year was converted into English calendar year. The State Government
has filed a counter affidavit disputing the entitlement of the petitioner
for freedom fighter’s pension. The State Government has in the
counter affidavit, contended that apart from the fact that the
W.P.(C)26455/2005 3
petitioner’s application was belatedly made after the last date fixed for
the purpose, viz. 31.3.1994, one of the certificates issued to the
petitioner from a co-prisoner who is said to have undergone
imprisonment during the freedom struggle cannot be relied on in view
of the defects noticed in Ext.P6.
3. I have considered the submissions made at the bar by the
learned counsel appearing on either side. The first reason stated in
Ext.P6 to reject the petitioner’s application is that one of the
certificates issued by a co-prisoner is not acceptable for the reason
that it states he had undergone imprisonment after the nation attained
independence. The second reason stated is that the application was
belatedly made after the last date fixed for the purpose. The relevant
portion of Ext.P6 reads as follows:-
The produced co-prisoner’s certificates were not
acceptable since the certifiers did not have minimum
imprisonment sufferings. The jail records of
K.Gopinathan show the imprisonment period as from
10th Meenam 1115 to 10.6.1116. According to the jail
records of Sri.P.K.Bhaskaran, the certifier was
submitted into jail on 11th Dhanu and released on
3.2.1123. The 12th Vrichikam 1123 shown as the date
of sentence of Sri.P.K.Bhaskaran corresponds to
27.12.1947 i.e. the certifier commenced the
undergoing of the sentence only after independence.
In short the period and place if imprisonment claimed
by the petitioner with that of certifiers did not tally.
The name of the movement in which the petitioner had
participated was not mentioned by the certifiers.
Therefore the co-prisoner’s certificates were not
acceptable.
The claim was enquired through the Tahsildar,
W.P.(C)26455/2005 4
Karunagappally and he has reported that the petitioner
is not an actual freedom fighter and also specifically
has stated that, the petitioner was not eligible for the
freedom fighters’ pension.
Thereafter the claim was verified at Govt.level
and was rejected. Then the petitioner had petitioned
before the KSHRC as RMP 3333/02 KSHRC and the
same was duly replied requesting also for rejection of
the petition.
The acceptance of co-prisoner’s certificates
should have correlation with the period and place of
imprisonment claimed by the petitioner and that of
certifiers. Here the period and place of imprisonment
claimed by the petitioner and those of certifiers are
entirely different. Moreover the petitioner has failed to
substantiate his claimed sufferings with acceptable
documentary evidence. in the circumstances DC,
Kollam has further suggested that the request of the
petitioner may be declined and petition may be
rejected accordingly.
After considering the above points, Government
do not find any reasons to differ from the views of the
D.C. Kollam. KFFP Scheme was started with effect
from 1.4.1971. Even after 20 years since the inception
of the scheme, applications were being received
without acceptable certificates. Hence as per Circular
No.57183/93/GAD dtd.31.12.1993 Govt. fixed a target
date .i.e.31.3.1994 for submitting applications and it
was made clear in the circular that applications
received thereafter will be considered only on
production of documentary evidence from official
records such as warrant of arrest, court record, jail
records clearly showing the applicants’ suffering in
connection with freedom struggle. In this case the
petitioner submitted application only on 22.2.2001 and
without documentary evidence from official records.
The scheme of KFFP was started on 1971. The
petitioner has applied for pension only on 22.2.2001.
No convincing grounds are seen to condone the delay
in submitting the application also.
4. The Apex Court has in Union of India v Avtar Singh (2006
(6) SCC 493) held that when the authorities concerned have on a
W.P.(C)26455/2005 5
consideration of the materials on record found that the applicant for
freedom fighters pension does not satisfy the basic requirements for
grant of pension and have refused to grant pension under the scheme,
the High Court would not be justified in directing the authorities to
grant pension to the applicant. In the light of the authoritative
pronouncement of the Apex Court and in view of the finding of fact
arrived at by the Government on the basis of the materials produced
before it, I am of the opinion that the findings in Ext.P6 cannot be
faulted. In my opinion, the petitioner has not established that he was
imprisoned in M.C.No.122 of Karunagappally Police Station along with
Mr.K.Gopinathan and Sri.P.K.Bhaskaran who have issued Exts.P2 and
P2(a) respectively. The petitioner has not produced any material to
establish his claim. I therefore hold that no case has been made out
to interfere with Exts.P6 and P7. The writ Petition accordingly fails and
it is dismissed. No costs.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
css/