IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29732 of 2007(M)
1. N.K. RAGHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.SATHEESH
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, SC, KFC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :11/04/2008
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)NO.29732 of 2007-M
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a freedom fighter who had actively participated in
the Punnapra – Vayalar movement during the freedom struggle. In
connection with case No.P. E. 7/1122 ME he was detained as an undertrial
prisoner also. After the case was withdrawn by the Government, he was let
off. Again, he was arrested by the police in the year 1124 ME in connection
with case No. CC 280/1124 ME before the Divisional First Class Magistrate
Court, Alleppey. After trial, the criminal court convicted and sentenced him
to undergo R.I. for a period of two years as per judgment dated 6.2.1125
ME. He had undergone imprisonment in the Central Prison, Trivandrum for
a period of one year and 8 months from 8.2.1125 ME to 21.5.1951 after
earning remission of four months. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the extract of
the Convict Register of Central Prison, Trivandrum.
2. The petitioner is a recipient of State Pension which is evidenced
by Ext.P3 order passed by the District Collector, Alappuzha. Ext.P4 is the
application for grant of SSS pension. At that time, he could not submit the
copy of Ext.P1 and he submitted the co-prisoners’ certificates issued by
WPC 29732/2007 -2-
prominent freedom fighters. They include Shri H.K. Chakrapani and Shri
P.K. Sukumaran. Finally, he was informed by the District Collector as per
Ext.P6 that his application is rejected as the documents relating to the
period of imprisonment of the certifiers, viz. Shri H.K. Chakrapani and Shri
P.K. Sukumaran, have not been produced. The Central Government, by
Ext.P7 clarified that as far as freedom fighters of Punnapra – Vayalar
struggle are concerned, even if the imprisonment period is after the
independence, they will be eligible for grant of SSS pension. Therefore, he
produced Ext.P1 extract of the Convict Register of Central Prison,
Trivandrum along with Ext.P8, before the second respondent. Since there
was undue delay in the matter, he filed Writ Petition No.11859/2004 and
while the writ petition was pending, his application was rejected by the
State Government by Ext.P9 order. This was rejected on the ground that
there is discrepancy between the period of imprisonment claimed in the
application for pension and as covered in the true extract of the Convict
Register.
3. This court, by Ext.P10 judgment, quashed Ext.P9 after finding that
the reasons are not correct. It was directed to consider the matter afresh.
But finally, by Ext.P11 again the application has been rejected for the very
same reasons. This is under challenge in this writ petition.
WPC 29732/2007 -3-
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Ext.P10
judgment, the matter was elaborately considered and it was held that as the
Convict Register is an authentic document maintained by the officers of the
second respondent itself in which imprisonment of the petitioner is
mentioned as two years, there is no reason to suspect the genuineness of the
Convict Register. It was also held there in that merely because the
petitioner mentioned in his application that the period of imprisonment is
six months and 28 days, that does not render the extract of the Convict
Register unacceptable. It was also directed by this court that the second
respondent ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner on the basis
of the extract of the Convict Register and made appropriate
recommendation to the first respondent for consideration of the petitioner’s
application for grant of SSS pension.
5. A reading of Ext.P11 shows that the State Government, without
considering the import of the findings contained in Ext.P10 judgment, again
for the very same reasons, did not recommend the application. This is
clearly impermissible. After this court found that the said reason is not
correct, it is un-understandable as to how the State could have restated the
very same reason while forwarding the verification-cum-entitlement report.
The reason that the claim is doubtful because of the fact that in the
WPC 29732/2007 -4-
application for SSS pension he claimed only imprisonment for six months
and 28 days, but in the Convict Register the imprisonment is for two years,
is not correct. His application for pension is dated 30.4.1998. At that time
Ext.P7 clarification by the Central Government that the condition of
imprisonment for six months in the main land jails before independence
could not apply in case of Punnapra – Vayalar struggle, was not there.
Ext.P7 is dated 7.4.2003. It is obviously for the said reason that in the
application Ext.P4, he relied upon the detention for a period of six
months and 28 days in Alleppey Sub Jail. The petitioner has explained as
per Ext.P8 representation that the true extract of the Convict Register,
Ext.P1 was produced by him after Ext.P7 clarification was issued by the
Central Government. This aspect has been lost sight of by the State
Government while forwarding the verification-cum-entitlement report.
Apart from that, Ext.P1 is a genuine document showing the period of
sentence and the date of admission into the jail and date of release, etc. The
period therein will entitle him for grant of SSS pension. Therefore, clearly
there is primary evidence available here in the form of Ext.P1, the
genuineness of which has not been disputed at all. The authorities have
lost sight of the findings contained in Ext.P9 judgment also, as noted
already. When the very foundation for the rejection of the application as per
WPC 29732/2007 -5-
the proceedings issued at that time has been set aside by this court in
Ext.P10 after rendering a finding on merits, the respondents ought to have
given a positive recommendation based on Ext.P1 itself. For all these
reasons, I find that Ext.P11 has to be set aside. I hold that the petitioner is
fully entitled to rely on Ext.P1, true extract of the Convict Register. The
reason stated in Ext.P11 for rejection of the application that there is no
record of primary evidence, that there is no valid NARC and that in the
absence of valid NARC, the co-prisoners’ certificates cannot be accepted,
are all therefore unsustainable.
Therefore, the second respondent is directed to forward a fresh
verification-cum-entitlement report to the first respondent, recommending
the application of the petitioner for SSS pension in the light of Ext.P1, true
extract of the Convict Register, within a period of one month from the date
of production of a copy of this judgment. The first respondent shall
thereafter consider the application afresh in the light of the primary
evidence available (Ext.P1) and the certificates issued by the co-prisoners.
Final orders shall be passed within a further period of two months
thereafter. The entitlement of the petitioner for arrears of pension from the
date of receipt of the application for SSS pension (Ext.P4), will also be
WPC 29732/2007 -6-
considered while sanctioning pension.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/
WPC 29732/2007 -7-
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
O.P. No.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
JUDGMENT
6th March, 2008.