IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32409 of 2006(G) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- * K. SUPRABHA, S/O. LATE P.KESAVAN, G.K. VILAS, NANTHAIVANAM, NEDUMPARAMPU P.O., (VIA) ALAMCODE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. * THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE W.P. IS CORRECTED SHOWING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AS K. SUBHADRA. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.P.PRATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS DIVISION, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA, ADDL.CGSC R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 32409/2006(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE KERALA STATE GOVERNMENT BY ORDER DATED 01/01/1973 BY VIDE ORDER NO.42355/72/FIN-9/R-DIS. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRAM DATED 03/10/1990 IE. VIDE ORDER C4-67734/90. P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ALL INDIA INA COMMITTEE. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/08/94 TO MR. SAINI, THE , THEN DIRECTOR (FF) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/12/2005 ISSUED TO 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 32409 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Prayer sought in this writ petition is mainly to direct the 2nd respondent to forward necessary recommendations to the 1st respondent so as to enable the 1st respondent to issue order granting freedom fighters pension to the Petitioner. The Petitioner submits that her husband Late Sri.P.Kesavan was a freedom fighter and a member of the Indian National Army. It is stated that by Ext.P1 order, the State Government granted him freedom fighters pension. Her husband expired on 15.6.1990. Thereafter, Ext.P2 order was issued granting pension to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner states that during his life time, her husband had preferred a claim for central freedom fighters pension which was rejected by the 1st respondent on technical grounds. It is averred that her husband had undergone detention in Bidadasi camp for seven months and that since he had no document to support his case of detention, he did not claim the same in the application for Central Pension. W.P.(C).No. 32409 OF 2006 2 3. Petitioner submits that after the death of her husband, she made repeated representations, the last of which is Ext.P5 and that in spite of all this, the 2nd respondent did not recommend her case for pension of the 1st respondent. It is therefore this writ petition is filed. 4. The learned Government Pleader who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that under the rules governing grant of Central Pension, the applicant has to produce certificate issued by the detaining authority or at least, certificate issued by co-prisoners, to the effect that the claimant was under detention for more than six months. It is stated on the petitioner's own showing, neither the applicant nor the petitioner produced any document to prove the case that her husband was under detention for more than six months. It is stated that it was therefore the respondents were unable to recommend the case to the 1st respondent. 5. Admittedly, rules framed by the 1st respondent requires production of certificates to prove the claim of detention by the applicant for freedom fighters pension. In this case, the petitioner does not even claim that any such certificate issued either by the W.P.(C).No. 32409 OF 2006 3 detaining authority or by any co-prisoner has been produced to substantiate the claim in connection with the imprisonment of her husband. 6. Therefore, on the materials available, the 2nd respondent cannot be faulted for not making any recommendation to the 1st respondent for granting freedom fighters pension to the petitioner's husband or to her. 7. Therefore, I am unable to find any merit in the claims raised. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE dmb