IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19165 of 2006(F)
1. PUSHAKARI, W/O. LATE DOMINIC YOYHANNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.SATHEESH
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :31/07/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.19165 OF 2006
------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. The petitioner is the widow of a veteran freedom
fighter, Sri:Dominic Yohannan, who participated in “Punnapra-
Vayalar movement” during the period of national freedom
struggle and who was convicted and sentenced in a criminal case
registered in connection with the said movement. The
Government of India had recognized the “Punnapra-Vayalar
movement” as part of a national freedom struggle, for the
purpose of granting “Swatantratha Sainik Samman Pension”,
with effect from 20.1.1998. Thereafter the petitioner submitted
application for pension on 27.3.1998. Since her application was
not disposed of, she along with two other similarly situated
persons have approached this Court in O.P.8706/01. But during
pendency of that writ petition, through Ext.P4 order, the
petitioner was granted monthly pension, with effect from
26.12.2000. According to the petitioner the pension ought to
have been granted with effect from 20.1.1998, the date on which
the “Punnapra-Vayalar movement” was recognized as part of
national freedom struggle, or at least with effect from 31.3.1998,
i.e: the date on which her application was received by the
W.P.(C).19165/06 2
respondents.
2. This Court while disposing of O.P:8706/01, in Ext.P5
judgment directed the respondent to look into the claim of the
petitioner with respect to arrears, in accordance with law and to
take a decision within a period of three months from receipt of
the representation to be submitted by the petitioner along with
copy of the judgment. In Ext.P5 Judgment this Court observed
that, “Once the Government of India finds entitlement to pension for
freedom fighters. I do not understand any justification for denying the
arrears since the entitlement of pension is on the declaration that the
petitioners are freedom fighters. After all such freedom fighters do not
claim interest on arrears.” Ext.P6 is the representation submitted
in this regard. But the petitioner’s claim for arrears was denied
through Ext.P7, stating that the application of the petitioner,
forwarded by the State Government, was received by the
respondents only on 26.12.2000 and hence the pension was
granted with effect from that date only.
3. Petitioner had produced Ext.P8, which is a counter
affidavit filed by the respondent in another writ petition, WP(C).
No:19614/04. It is revealed that in an identical case for grant of
dependent family pension with respect to participation in
“Punnapra-Vayalar movement” the earlier order was reviewed
W.P.(C).19165/06 3
and pension was sanctioned from an ante-date of 20.1.1998
onwards. Petitioner is seeking relief based on Ext.P8 and claims
that an identical treatment need be ensured.
4. If the respondents had allowed pension in other cases
with effect from 20.1.1998, i.e: from the date of recognition of
“Punnpra-Vayalar movement” as part of national freedom
struggle, I find no reason as to why similar benefit should not be
granted in the case of petitioner also. In this regard learned
counsel for the petitioner had brought to my notice a Division
Bench decision of this Court in Union of India Vs. Radhamony
(2005 (4) KLT 27). In that case this Court held that the
eligibility for grant of pension is from the date of receipt of the
original application. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari Vs. Union of India
(1993 Supp.(3) SCC 2) this Court held that an earlier Division
Bench decision in Krishnan Kutty Vs. Union of India (2003
(1) KLT 21) in which it is held that the entitlement is from
20.1.1998 i.e.:from the date of recognition of the movement as
national freedom struggle, is not good law. It is held that, as
observed in Mukund Lal Bhandari’s case (cited supra) the
entitlement is from the date on which the original application is
received whether, the application is filed with or without the
requisite evidence.
W.P.(C).19165/06 4
5. In the case at hand the petitioner was allowed pension
only from 26.12.2000 assigning the reason that the petitioner’s
application, forwarded by the State Government along with their
report, was received by the respondent only on that date. But
from Ext.P2 Postal Acknowledgement Card it is evident that the
original application (Ext.P1) dt:27.3.1998 was received at the
Office of the Deputy Secretary of the respondent on 31.3.1998.
Therefore going by the directions contained in Mukund Lal
Bhandari’s case, which is followed in Radhamony’s case, it is
to be held that the petitioner is entitled to get pension w:e:f:
31.3.1998.
In such circumstances the writ petition is disposed of
directing the respondent to sanction “Swatantrata Sainik
Samman Pension” to the petitioner with effect from 31.3.1998
onwards, in modification of the earlier orders allowing such
pension w:e:f: 26.12.2000. The arrears in this regard shall be
disbursed to the petitioner within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb