IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 267 of 2007(F)
1. N.GOPALAN, CHOORAPATTIL VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :02/06/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 267 of 2007
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 2nd day of June, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter. He applied for
pension under the Swanthrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. That
has been rejected by Ext. P3 order. The petitioner challenges Ext. P3
order seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus, or such other writ, order or
direction directing respondents to reconsider the application
submitted by the petitioner in the year 1982, and grant the
pensional benefits of freedom fights to the petitioner.
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari, or such other writ, order or
direction to quash Ext. P3 order.
(iii) Declare that the petitioner is a freedom fighter.
(iv) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to all rights, privileges,
pension benefits and other benefits due to a freedom fighter.”
2. Under the SSS Pension Scheme, to enable the Central
Government to consider the claim of the petitioner, the State
Government has to consider the claim and recommend the same.
Respondents 2 and 3 would contend that the State Government has
not recommended the petitioner’s claim. The 1st respondent has filed
a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has not produced the
relevant certificates proving his jail sufferings viz. co-prisoner’s
certificates in the prescribed form with a non-availability of records
certificate. Instead, he has produced Ext. P1 letter from one D.
Damodaran Potti in his letter pad stating that the petitioner is a
freedom fighter. Therefore, according to the State Government, the
petitioner has not proved his jail sufferings in accordance with the
scheme for becoming eligible for freedom fighters pension.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
4. Even along with this writ petition, the petitioner has not
W.P.C. No. 267/2007 -: 2 :-
produced the relevant documents, which would enable him to claim
pension. As per the scheme applicable, the petitioner has to prove his
sufferings through co-prisoners who have more than one year’s jail
suffering. The petitioner has not been able to produce even one. That
being so, I do not think that the respondent could consider the
petitioner’s claim favourably.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/