IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29182 of 2008(Y)
1. RAJAMMA MADHAVAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.SATHEESH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :19/05/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 29182 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 19th day of May, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner claims to be the widoe of a freedom fighter. She
claims to have submitted an application claiming freedom fighters’
pension under the State scheme in respect of her late husband. The
same was rejected by Ext. P8. The reason stated therein is that in
view of Ext. P7 Government Order dated 5-2-2008, making it
compulsory for applicants for freedom fighters pension filing
applications after 31-3-1994, to produce documentary evidences from
official records like warrant of arrest, court records, jail records etc.,
clearly showing the applicant’s suffering in connection with the
freedom struggle. The petitioner’s application was refused to be
considered since the same is not accompanied by such documents.
The petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P8 orders.
2. The petitioner would contend that Ext. P7 is bad in law.
According to the petitioner, the Government cannot take away
retrospectively the right of a freedom fighter to get pension on the
basis of the scheme available as on the date of application. The
petitioner would also try to argue that in fact the petitioner submitted
an application in 1980 itself.
3. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner in the
light of the arguments advanced by both sides.
4. Freedom fighters pension is not a right as such. It is a
benefit conferred by the Government to freedom fighters by a
Government Order. As such, there is no vested right in any person to
get freedom fighters pension. The law is settled that the prohibition
in taking away a right retrospectively is only in respect of vested
rights. The petitioner could not also satisfy me that the petitioner had
submitted an application prior to the date of Ext. P7 order, namely,
5-2-2008. The petitioner herself has produced Ext. P1 certificate,
W.P.C. No. 29182/08. -: 2 :-
which is dated 16-2-2008. The fact that one of the certificates
produced along with the application is dated 16-2-2008 shows that
the application could not have been submitted prior to 16-2-2008.
That being so, I do not think that I can countenance the contention of
the petitioner that she filed an application even prior to Ext. P7. Of
course, the petitioner tried to contend that in view of Ext. P4, it must
be taken that the petitioner had submitted an application prior to Ext.
P7 order. But Ext. P4 is dated 3-3-2008, which is also after Ext. P7.
The very fact that the petitioner has chosen to challenge Ext. P7 itself
would show that the petitioner had not submitted an application prior
to Ext. P7.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ
petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/