High Court Kerala High Court

Sarojini vs The Union Of India on 1 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sarojini vs The Union Of India on 1 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7683 of 2007(M)


1. SAROJINI, W/O. C.K.CHALLAPPAN, AGED 72,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :01/12/2008

 O R D E R
                          T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                           W.P.(C). No.7683/2007-M
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008.

                                 J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the widow of Sri.C.K.Chellappan, a freedom fighter,

who actively participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar Freedom struggle. Ext.P1 is

the application for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. The claimed

underground period is more than six months from 30/10/1946 to 30/11/1947,

pursuant to the late husband of the petitioner being arrayed as an accused in

case No.P.E.7/1122 ME of the Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. Ext.P2 is

the order sanctioning pension to the petitioner under the Kerala Freedom

Fighters’ Pension Scheme. Ext.P4 is the non-availability of records certificate

issued from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. Ext.P5 is the

certificate issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani wherein it is stated that the petitioner’s

late husband remained underground for more than six months from 30/10/1946

to 30/11/1947 and the case number is mentioned as P.E.7/1122 (ME). Ext.P6 is

the true extract of the convict register in respect of the certifier and Ext.P7 is the

order granting pension under the S.S.S Pension Scheme to the certifier.

Ultimately, by Ext.P8, the application was rejected by the Central Government.

2. A reading of Ext.P8 shows that the State Government has not

forwarded a positive recommendation. The main reason stated in the letter of

W.P.(C) No.7683/2007
-:2:-

the State Government, dated 22/09/2006, extracted in Ext.P8 is that the affidavit

from Shri.S.Damodaran, Ex-MLA cannot be accepted and the District Collector

has in his report stated that in the application for State Pension, the petitioner’s

husband has claimed only six months of underground hardships and the case

does not show that he has any kinship with case No.P.E.7/1122 ME.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State

Government did not properly consider the matter in the light of the certificates

produced by the petitioner. It is pointed out that the applicant in Ext.P1 has

clearly shown the underground suffering. The certifier, Sri.H.K.Chakrapani is a

competent certifier and the particulars have been stated by him in Ext.P5. It is

therefore, submitted that the report forwarded by the District Collector is

without verifying the true aspects relating to the late husband of the petitioner.

In Ext.P8, the other ground stated is with regard to the validity of non-

availability of records certificate from the State Government. The said reason is

not correct, in the light of the fact that this Court had taken the view in various

cases that once the State Government forwards a positive recommendation, a

separate non-availability of records certificate is not required. Therefore, the

crucial question is to whether the action of the State Government in forwarding

the letter dated 22/09/2007 without positive recommendation is correct or not.

W.P.(C) No.7683/2007
-:3:-

4. Now that the petitioner has produced Ext.P5, the matter has to be

reconsidered by the State Government. There is no dispute that

Sri.H.K.Chakrapani is a competent certifier. The certificates relating to him

have to be considered along with other materials available with the State

Government.

5. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent to

consider the application of the petitioner along with the other available

materials and forward a fresh verification-cum-entitlement report showing

appropriate recommendation to the first respondent within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The first

respondent will reconsider the matter in the light of the fresh verification-cum-

entitlement report forwarded by the State Government and pass appropriate

orders within two months thereafter. If pension is sanctioned, then the

entitlement of the applicant for receipt of arrears from the date of receipt of

Ext.P1 will also be considered by the Central Government.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

ms