IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31178 of 2004(J)
1. SAVITHRI GANGADHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.SATHEESH
For Respondent :SRI.ROJO JOSEPH THURUTHIPARA, ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :13/11/2008
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C) Nos.31178/2004-J and 12456/2007-G
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
These two writ petitions are filed by two applicants for grant of
Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension.
2. In W.P.(C).No.31178/2004, the petitioner is the claimant for
pension on account of her participation in the Punnapra Vayalar Movement.
It is stated that an arrest warrant was issued against her by the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Cherthala, in P.E.No.10/1122 M.E and she
remained underground to evade arrest for more than six months from
10/03/1122 to 12/10/1122 M.E. Ext.P1 is the order granting her pension
under the Kerala Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme. Ext.P2 is the
application for grant of Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension. The personal
knowledge certificate produced is issued by Sri.Narayanan Ramankutty
(Ext.P3) and Ext.P4 is the non-availability of records certificate issued by
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Cherthala. By Ext.P6 letter, the
second respondent conveyed their stand that the application of the petitioner
cannot be recommended in the absence of official records. The petitioner
has later produced Ext.P8 personal knowledge certificate issued by
W.P.(C) Nos.31178/2004 &
12456//2007
-:2:-
Sri.H.K.Chakrapani along with Ext.P7 representation. The certificates
relating to the certifier are produced as Exts.P9 and P10. During the
pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent communicated their
decision as Ext.P11, stating that her application is not being recommended.
A perusal of Ext.P11 shows that it was not recommended based on the
information given by the District Collector, Alappuzha that the name of the
petitioner is not seen mentioned along with accused in case No.P.E.10/1122
M.E.
3. In W.P.(C).No.12456/2007, the claimant is the widow of
Sri.Varghese. The State Government had granted pension to him as per
Ext.P1. The claim is based on participation of the late husband of the
petitioner in Punnapra Vayalar Freedom Struggle. It is stated that he was
arrayed as an accused in Case No.P.E.10/1122 M.E of the Special
Magistrate Court, Alappuzha and non-bailable warrant was issued against
him. He went underground from 28/10/1946 to 1950 and he was arrested in
the year 1950 and kept in the Sub Jail of Alappuzha for a period of 11
months. The late husband of the petitioner is a holder of Thamrapathra and
he died on 14/02/1980. Ext.P2 is the application of the petitioner for grant
of S.S.S pension. The personal knowledge certificate issued by
W.P.(C) Nos.31178/2004 &
12456//2007
-:3:-
Sri.H.K.Chakrapani is produced as Ext.P3 and Exts.P4 and P5 are the
certificates relating to the certifier. Ext.P6 is the copy of the non-
availability of records certificate issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Alappuzha and Ext.P7 is the non-availability of records certificate
issued from the office of the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Alappuzha.
4. Ext.P2 application stands rejected as per Ext.P8 by the
Government of India, mainly stating that the State Government has not
recommended the application. The objection raised by the District
Collector whose remarks are extracted in Ext.P8 is that “as per the available
copy of the judgment P.E.10/1122, the name of petitioner’s husband is not
seen included”.
5. In the counter affidavits filed by the State Government in these
two writ petitions, the stand taken apparently is that the names of the
respective parties are not there in the judgment in case No.P.E.No.10/1122
M.E in the array of accused. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court,
a copy of the judgment in case No.P.E.No.10/1122 M.E has been made
available by the learned Government Pleader and the petitioner in W.P.(C).
No.12456/2007 has also produced it as Ext.P11. Along with counter
affidavit in W.P.(C).No.31178/2004, the same has been produced as Ext.R2
W.P.(C) Nos.31178/2004 &
12456//2007
-:4:-
(a). A perusal of the document shows that it is not a copy of the judgment
in case No.P.E.No.10/1122 M.E (Sc.9/123). Column 17 of the document
shows that the case has been transferred to the Addl.Temp.Sessions Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram, and a list of total number of 25 accused has been
shown in the cause title. No other details are available. Therefore, this
cannot be treated as a copy of the judgment. What happened after the case
was transferred to Addl.Temp.Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is not
evident from the counter affidavit.
6. Obviously, the applications were not recommended treating the
above mentioned document, namely, Ext.P11 in W.P.(C).No.12456/2007 as
final. It is clear from the counter affidavit also that the State Government
has treated the said document as a copy of the judgment. The learned
counsel for the petitioners are right in pointing out that as many of the
accused were underground, the list of accused shown in the said document
cannot be treated as final. I find force in the above submission.
7. Therefore, the approach made by the State Government in
respect of the applications relying upon the said document is not correct. It
cannot be treated as a conclusive one. There is no plea in the counter
affidavit that the total number of accused in P.E.No.10/1122 M.E was 25
W.P.(C) Nos.31178/2004 &
12456//2007
-:5:-
only and the names shown in the document are conclusive. Therefore, no
finality can be attached to the same. The matter will have to be re-
considered in the light of the personal knowledge certificates, the non-
availability of records certificates etc. relied on by the respective petitioners.
Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner:-
i. Ext.P11 in W.P.(C).No.31178/2004 and Ext.P8 in W.P.(C).
No.12456/2007 are hereby quashed.
ii. The State Government will forward a fresh verification-cum-
entitlement report showing appropriate recommendation after considering
the various certificates/materials relied upon by the respective parties within
two months from the date of receipt of the judgment to the first respondent.
iii. The first respondent will re-consider the issue based on the
above within a further period of two months thereafter.
iv. In the event of sanction of pension, the claim for arrears of
pension from the date of application in these two cases will also be
considered by the first respondent. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms