M.I.Varghese vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2916 Ker

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
      WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                             WP(C) NO. 18461 OF 2013
PETITIONER:

              M.I.VARGHESE
              MANNARAPRAYIL HOUSE, YMCA ROAD, THANKALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM
              P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KERALA 686691

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.P.ALI
              SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM



RESPONDENTS:

     1        UNION OF INDIA
              REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMENT, MINISTRY OF
              HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR NDCC-II
              BUILDING, PARLLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI 110003

     2        STATE OF KERALA
              RERPESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
              ADMINISTRATION (FFP-A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

     3        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
              ERNAKULAM

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
              ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
              SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC
              SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA




     THIS     WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
16.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                        SATHISH NINAN, J.
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                  W.P.(C) No.18461 of 2013
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
           Dated this the 16th day of March, 2022

                          J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by the denial of pension under the

Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme formulated by

the first respondent Union, the petitioner is before

this Court.

2. The petitioner claims to have participated in

the freedom movement. According him, faced with an order

of arrest he remained underground during the period from

January 1947 to August 1947. He is the recipient of the

State Freedom Fighters Pension. The request of the

petitioner was rejected by the first respondent as per

Ext.P3 order. The reasons for rejection, has been

mentioned in paragraph 8 of Ext.P3 order and the same

reads thus:-

"(i) The petitioner has not submitted any document

based Primary Evidence duly verified by the State

Government from official records.

W.P.(C) No.18461 of 2013

(ii) The petitioner has submitted NARC but an

acceptable PKC from eligible certifier duly verified

by the Sate Government has not been submitted.

(iii) State Government has issued NARC in the

proper form, however, they have expressed their

inability to verify the genuiness and eligibility of the

certifiers in the absence of supporting documents. In

the absence of documentary evidence of certifier the

certificate issued cannot be relied upon.

(iv) State Goverment had vide the aforesaid letter

dated 10.05.2013 recommended the claim

application without specifying any reason/basis for

the positive recommendation, just in compliance of

direction of Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated

14.03.2013 in WP(C) No.20225/2012. Hence it is

not acceptable."

As is evident from the above, essentially the reason for

rejection of the application is the non-availability of

records to prove the eligibility of the certifier. W.P.(C) No.18461 of 2013

3. As per the Scheme, if documentary evidence to

prove that the freedom fighter was underground for the

period required under the Scheme, is not available, then

a certificate vouching that the claimant was underground

for the required period in connection with the freedom

struggle, has to be issued by a veteran freedom fighter

who had underwent imprisonment for five years or more.

4. In the case at hand, the petitioner relies on

Ext.P7 certificate issued by one Ontaman Ayyappan in

favour of the petitioner. That Sri.Ontaman Ayyappan is

an eligible certifier has been recognized and

acknowledged by this Court in W.P(C) No.5938 of 2013. In

the light thereof, the rejection of the petitioner's

claim on the ground of, failure to prove the eligibility

of Ontaman Ayyappan as an eligible certifier, cannot be

sustained. The claim of the petitioner is liable to be

reconsidered.

5. The second respondent shall re-consider the

claim of the petitioner in the light of the above, and W.P.(C) No.18461 of 2013

pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity

of hearing to the petitioner. The second respondent will

also take note of the materials upon which the claim for

pension under the State's Scheme has been awarded in

favour of the petitioner. On the petitioner being found

to be entitled for recommendation, the same shall be

forwarded to the first respondent within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. On receipt of recommendation, if any, from the

second respondent, the first respondent shall re-

consider the petitioner's claim and pass appropriate

orders within a period of one month therefrom.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18461/2013

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 20225/2012 DATED 14-03-2013

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENTD DATED 10-05-2013

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 14-06-2013

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03-10-2013

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-10-2013

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15-01-2013

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PKC OF ONTAMAN AYYAPPAN

-----