High Court Kerala High Court

N.Damayanthy vs The State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2007

Kerala High Court
N.Damayanthy vs The State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 2035 of 2007()


1. N.DAMAYANTHY, W/O. K.NANOO,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :13/09/2007

 O R D E R
                    H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.
                    ----------------------------------------------------
                           W.A. NO. 2035 OF 2007
                    ----------------------------------------------------
                     Dated this the 13th September, 2007

                                    JUDGMENT

H.L.DATTU, C.J.

Appellant before us is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21112 of

2005. In the said Writ Petition, petitioner had called in question the orders

passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 3rd

November, 2000. The Central Government has rejected the claim of the

petitioner for grant of SSS Pension.

2. Learned single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition on three

grounds. Firstly, that there is delay and latches on the part of the petitioner

in approaching the Court by filing a Writ Petition in the year 2005, wherein

the order passed by the Central Government of the year 2000 is

questioned. Secondly, that the petitioner had not fully complied with the

conditions stipulated in the Scheme for grant of SSS Pension and thirdly,

that the petitioner’s husband, though was alive till 1992, did not choose to

make any claim for grant of SSS Pension before the Central Government.

3. Admittedly, a representation had been filed by the petitioner

before the Central Government for grant of SSS Pension. Since the

representation filed had not been considered by the Central Government,

the petitioner was before this Court in O.P.No.17767 of 2000. This Court

had directed the Central Government to consider the representation of the

W.A. NO.2035 OF 2007

:: 2 ::

petitioner and pass an appropriate order. After disposal of the Original

Petition, the Union Government had passed an order dated 3rd November,

2000 and communicated the same to the petitioner. Though the order is

dated 3rd November, 2000, petitioner, for the first time, had approached this

Court by filing a Writ Petition in the year 2005. There is no explanation,

much less a reasonable explanation, for approaching this Court nearly after

five years of the date of the order passed by the Central Government. On

this ground alone, the learned single Judge could have rejected the Writ

Petition.

4. In the Scheme under which SSS Pension is granted, the

applicant is expected to produce a certificate to prove his

detention/imprisonment, at least for an year’s time. In the instant case, the

certificate so produced by the petitioner along with the

representation/petition for grant of SSS pension was issued by a co-

prisoner of the petitioner’s husband, who had suffered imprisonment for

less than six months. The applicant will be entitled to grant of certain reliefs

by the Government, provided, the applicant has fully complied with the

conditions prescribed in the Scheme itself. In the instant case, since the

petitioner did not produce the certificate as required under the Scheme, in

our opinion, the Central Government was justified in rejecting the claim of

the petitioner for SSS Pension. The learned single Judge has taken note of

this condition and accordingly has made this as one of the grounds for

W.A. NO.2035 OF 2007

:: 3 ::

rejecting the Writ Petition.

In our opinion, in view of the above, interference with the order

passed by the learned single Judge is not called for. Accordingly, the Writ

Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.

(H.L.DATTU)
Chief Justice

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/