IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Con.Case(C).No. 1868 of 2008(S) ----------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25817/2006 Dated 23/07/2008 .................... PETITIONER(S): ADDL. 2ND PETITIONER ------------------------- BHARGAVI,W/O. VELU MADHAVAN,AGED 79 PARACHERIL, MUHAMMA P.O,ALAPPUZHA, KERALA. BY ADV. MR.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): IST RESPONDENT -------------------------- MADHUKAR GUPTHA,WORKING AS SECREATARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. (THE AGE OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE NAME OF THE FATHER OF THE RESPONDENT ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AND HENCE THE ABOVE DETAILS ARE NOT FURNISHED HERE). *ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED. ADDL.R2. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, WORKING AS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 21.12.2009 IN IA. 672/2009. BY ADV. MR.K.SANIL KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON 19/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.O.(C) No.1868 of 2008-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is an applicant for grant of Swathanthratha Sainik Samman Pension. After this Contempt Petition was filed, the petitioner has impleaded the present Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi as additional respondent. It is alleged that the original respondent and the additional respondent did not bear in mind the directions issued by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment while rejecting the application. 2. Annexure A1 is the judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No.25817/2006 wherein the challenge was against Ext.P9 order by which the application for pension was rejected. The State Government did not recommend the application, which aspect was considered by this Court in the judgment. Ext.P6 is the copy of the certificate issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, showing the period of imprisonment of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, this Court directed the Government to forward a fresh verification-cum-entitlement report after considering Ext.P6. COC 18678/08 2 3. In the affidavit filed by the respondent, it is pointed out that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the State Government forwarded the verification report based on which the claim of the petitioner was rejected by a speaking order dated 4.2.2009. In the copy of the jail certificate, the period of imprisonment is shown as 4 months and 26 days and that the same is an unverified document and therefore it cannot be accepted. The State Government also reported that the name of the petitioner's husband does not figure in case No.CC 8/1124 ME which was reported by the District Collector. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to the acceptability of Ext.P6 report, already findings have been rendered by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment and therefore the rejection of the application is clearly in violation of the findings in Annexure A1 judgment. Therefore, the respondent has committed contempt of this Court. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the findings are mainly based on the verification-cum-entitlement report of the State Government and the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the order in a fresh writ petition. COC 18678/08 3 6. In Annexure A1 judgment this Court has referred to Ext.P6, the certificate issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. It is mentioned in para 3 of the judgment that the original petitioner was convicted and sentenced to six months by the First Class Magistrate, Cherthala in C.C.No.8/124 and he had undergone the sentence and was released on 8.11.1124 ME on expiry of the sentence. But still, the respondent has now found that the certificate is unacceptable relying on the verification-cum-entitlement report of the State Government. Copy of the report of the State Government is not available herein, to appreciate its contents. But it is mentioned in the report of the State Government that the genuineness of Ext.P6 certificate has been certified by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. 7. The decision of the respondent is on the merits of the matter. Of course, this Court had directed the Government to pass a fresh order after the State Government forwards a fresh verification-cum-entitlement report showing the recommendation. It cannot therefore be said that there is willful disobedience of the judgment of this Court compelling action against the respondent or the additional respondent. COC 18678/08 4 8. The petitioner's remedy is therefore, to file a writ petition challenging the order now passed by the Government of India. Leaving open the said remedy, the C.O.(C) is closed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/