IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31590 of 2005(I)
1. PANKAJAKSHY KARUNAKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.SATHEESH
For Respondent :SRI.VARGHESE J.PUNNACHALIL,ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :12/12/2008
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C) No.31590/2005-I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is seeking for a declaration that she is entitled to get
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension due to her late husband. There is a
further prayer to issue appropriate directions to the second respondent to
forward the verification-cum-entitlement report to the Central Government.
2. She is the widow of Sri.C.R.Karunakaran, a freedom fighter
who had actively participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar Freedom Movement.
On account of his participation in the said struggle on 26/01/1124ME, he
was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months by the First Class Magistrate, Cherthala in case No.C.C.38/1123
ME. Accordingly, he had undergone imprisonment in the Central Prison,
Thiruvananthapuram for the period from 29/01/1124 to 25/07/1124 ME as
convict No.9573. He was granted pension under the Kerala Freedom
Fighters’ Pension Scheme, which is produced as Ext.P1. He is also a
recipient of Thamrapatra. Ext.P2 is the application of the late husband of
the petitioner for grant of S.S.S.Pension, along with it, Ext.P3 a true copy of
the certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Prison,
Thiruvananthapuram with details of imprisonment was also enclosed. By
W.P.(C) No.31590/2005
-:2:-
Ext.P4, she was informed by the Central Government that they were awaiting
the verification report from the State Government. Petitioner’s late husband
expired on 08/03/1999. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an affidavit duly
attested by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Cherthala to the District
Collector, Alappuzha, which is produced as Ext.P5.
3. The respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. The first
respondent has stated that the application of the petitioner’s husband along with
mandatory verification-cum-entitlement to pension report of the State
Government has not been received so far.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the State Government, paragraph
(5) refers to the certificate produced by the late husband of the petitioner
Ext.P3, which is a jail certificate. While referring to the jail certificate issued
by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram (Ext.P3) it is stated
that usually the claim of imprisonment sufferings is supported by the extract of
the convict register. The petitioner’s husband had only produced a certificate.
It is further stated that in the application for pension under the Kerala Freedom
Fighters’ Pension Scheme the late husband of the petitioner had claimed
imprisonment for one year and eight months whereas the claim in the
S.S.S.Pension application is different. It is therefore submitted that the
genuineness of the claim is doubtful.
W.P.(C) No.31590/2005
-:3:-
5. Clearly the said stand is incorrect for various reasons. The
certificate Ext.P3 is primary evidence as required under the relevant scheme.
The second respondent do not have a case that the Superintendent is not
competent to certify the details of imprisonment of the person who was in jail
after conviction. Ext.P3 clearly shows that the late husband of the petitioner
was convict No.9573. He was an accused in C.C.No.38/1123ME on the file of
the First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala and he was convicted and sentenced to
undergo six months imprisonment under Section 9(1)(a) and Section 2 Cl.6 of
Act 1 of 122 on 26/01/1124 ME and he was released from prison on 25/07/1124
on expiry of sentence. Therefore, clearly there is six months imprisonment
which entitles the petitioner to claim pension. Merely because of the fact that in
respect of the claim under the Kerala Freedom Fighters’ Pension, a longer term
was shown, that cannot make the claim doubtful since there is primary
evidence. The covering letter along with the certificate shows the details of
sentence undergone by him. In the light of the said certificate, the second
respondent ought not have taken a stand that there is doubt in regard to the
genuineness of the claim. When there is primary evidence by way of such a
certificate issued by a competent authority that cannot be discarded on flimsy
reasons. Clearly when Ext.P3 certifies that he is imprisoned for six months in
prison in connection with the crime mentioned therein, it cannot be said that the
claim cannot be recommended to the Central Government. It is to be borne in
W.P.(C) No.31590/2005
-:4:-
mind that, he was granted State Pension and was a holder of Thamrapatra,
which shows that he is a genuine freedom fighter. Therefore, the stand taken in
the counter affidavit is too technical. The State Government ought to have
recommended the application for S.S.S Pension. It is up to the Central
Government to take a decision in the matter after considering all the materials.
6. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent to
forward to the first respondent the verification-cum-entitlement report
recommending the application for S.S.S Pension along with other materials
produced by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of the copy of this judgment. The first respondent will pass final orders within
two months after the receipt of the said report from the State Government. In
the event of sanction of pension, the entitlement of arrears from the date of
Ext.P2, 18/05/1998, will also be considered by the first respondent. Going by
Ext.P4 letter dated 29/07/1998 of the Central Government, they acknowledge
receipt of the application for S.S.S. Pension.
The original petition is allowed as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms