IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17752 of 2006(L)
1. P.M. KASIM, AGED 93 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
For Respondent :SMT.A.SREEKALA, ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :09/07/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 17752 OF 2006
------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. The original first petitioner in this writ petition was a
freedom fighter, who was sanctioned with ‘Freedom Fighters
Pension’ by the Central Government as per Ext.P1 with effect
from 20.8.1973, on a provisional basis. Subsequently the 1st
respondent had suspended the above said order on 11.10.1976,
and thereafter it was cancelled as per Ext.P6 order,
dt:12.1.1978. It was also recommended for recovery of amounts
already paid. Since various attempts made by the first petitioner
for having a reconsideration of the decision fetched no positive
results, he approached this Court on an earlier occasion, in
OP.No:22830/01. Through Ext.P11 judgment, this Court
quashed Ext.P6 order observing that the findings arrived at the
enquiry referred to in Ext.P6 was not disclosed or extracted and
Ext.P6 does not show any reason for cancellation of the pension
sanctioned. The 1st respondent was given liberty to pass fresh
orders if they choose so. Ext.P12 is the order issued by the 1st
respondent subsequent to Ext.P11 judgment. Observing that the
State Government had not recommended the application for
grant of pension on two occasions, vide its reports dt:19.8.1976
W.P.(C).17752/06 2
and 3.12.1977, it is informed that the 1st petitioner is not eligible
for the pension. Further the 1st respondent found that the
certificates produced along with the application was not proper
and it does not contain all informations required under the
scheme. Hence it is found that the applicant had not fulfilled the
minimum eligibility conditions and therefore the 1st respondent
is not in a position to restore the pension. Ext.P12 proceedings
is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The above writ petition was filed on 6.7.2006. But the
1st petitioner died on 27.8.2006, shortly after filing of this writ
petition. The wife of the 1st petitioner filed I.A.8007/09 for
getting herself impleaded as additional 2nd petitioner along with
I.A.No.8008/09 seeking to set aside abatement. Those petitions
are allowed and the wife of the 1st petitioner is impleaded as 2nd
petitioner.
3. As stated above, Ext.P12 decision of the 1st
respondent refers to two reports of the State Government,
dt.19.8.1976 & 2.12.1977, through which they declined to
recommend for Freedom Fighters Pension. The learned counsel
for petitioners had produced copy of another letter with
reference No.120230/FFP.A3/92/GAD, dt:23.6.1993 issued by the
State Government addressed to the Secretary to Government of
India, Minstry of Home Affairs. On a perusal it is revealed that
W.P.(C).17752/06 3
the application of the 1st petitioner was recommended for
“Swathanthrata Sainik Samman Pension”. The relevant portion
of the letter reads as follows.
” The case in question was discussed at the District
Advisory Committee held on 1.6.1992 and the
members of the District Advisory Committee
unanimously recommended this case for SSS Pension
as they were aware of the role of the applicant in the
freedom struggle. The District Collector has
recommended the case for SSS Pension. Since the
certificates produced found acceptable and the
movement in which the applicant participated has
been recognised for grant of SSS Pension. In the
above circumstances, the case of Shri.P.M. Kassim
may be reconsidered for SSS Pension.”
4. It is evident that while issuing Ext.P12 order, the
above quoted recommendation was not available with the 1st
respondent. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed
out that, as per the provisions of the Swathanthrata Sainik
Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, the widow of the freedom
fighter is an eligible dependent entitled for grant of SSS
Pension. Therefore sought interference of this Court to issue
directions to the 1st respondent for re-consideration of the matter
and for grant of pension to her. But it is evident that the 1st
respondent had no occasion to consider the recommendations of
the State Government, as contained in the letter dt:23.6.1993.
W.P.(C).17752/06 4
So also, it is for the 1st respondent to decide on the eligibility of
the 2nd petitioner for getting pension. It is also to be decided as
to whether the cancellation can be treated as annulled and in
such a case as to who are the persons eligible to receive the
arrears. Under such circumstances it is only just and proper in
the interest of justice to relegate the 2nd petitioner to the 1st
respondent for getting appropriate relieves.
In the result the 2nd petitioner is directed to submit a
representation to the 1st respondent seeking re-consideration of
Ext.P12, producing copy of the letter of the State Government
dt:23.6.1993, and a copy of this Judgment. The 1st respondent is
directed to re-consider the matter on receipt of such
representation and to take a final decision thereof, as early as
possible at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of
receipt of such representation.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb