IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 33069 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PUTHUSSERI VALIYA VEETTIL THAMBAYI AMMA, W/O. LATE ANDOOR KUNHAMBU NAMBIAR AGED 88 YEARS,PUTHUSSERI VALIYA VEETTIL HOUSE ERUVESSY.P.O., VIA CHEMPERI,KANNUR DISTRICT PIN-670632. BY ADV. SMT.K.R.KRISHNAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTE BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP.A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33069 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE U T REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, CANNANORE IN RESPECT OF U T NO.550, VIZ. LATE ANDOOR AMBU NAMBIAR EXT.P1(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE CONVICT REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, CANNANORE IN RESPECT OF CONVICT NO.6010, VIZ. LATE ANDOOR AMBU NAMBIAR EXT.P1(b)- TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE CONVICT REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, VELLORE IN RESPECT OF CONVICT NO.2643, VIZ. LATE ANDOOR AMBU NAMBIAR EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE KERALA FREEDOM FIGHTERS' PENSION RULES 1971 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R.DIS.105998/82 DATED 27.10.83 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CANNANORE EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.REF.MR-33341/01 DATED 30.7.02 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CANNANORE EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.6.1.97-FF(P) DATED 20.1.98 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE SWATANTRATA SAINIK SAMMAN PENSION SCHEME, 1980 EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN APRIL, 98 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).33069/2009 ....................... Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a widow of late Kunhambu Nambiar. Kunhambu Nambiar had participated in the Kavumbai movement on 30.12.1946 and was chargesheeted for various offences under the Indian Penal Code. He was remanded to jail on 28.1.1947 and was convicted by the Special First Class Magistrate on 14.6.1947. Ext.P1 is the Under Trial Register of the Central Jail, Kannur, which shows that the petitioner's husband was admitted to the jail on 28.1.1947 and was convicted on 14.6.1947. From Ext.P1(a), extract from Convict Register of the Central Jail, Kannur, it is seen that the late Nambiar was transferred to the Central Jail, Velloor, on being convicted by the Court. Ext.P1(b) is the extract of convict register of the Central Prison, Velloor, which shows that the petitioner's husband suffered imprisonment there during the period from 3.11.1948 to 16.8.1948. 2. Ext.P2 is the Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension Rules, 1971 and in terms thereof, pension was sanctioned to the petitioner's husband. While so, he expired on 29.8.1982 and thereupon W.P.(C).33069/09 2 pension was granted to his widows, by Ext.P3 order dated 27.10.1983. One of the widows also expired on 29.4.2000 and thereupon by Ext.P4 order the State Government granted pension to the petitioner, the surviving widow. 3. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the Central Government on 20.1.1998 recognizing Kavumbai movement as a part of the freedom struggle for the purpose of granting pension. Ext.P6 is the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of the Government of India. Since the eligibility as laid down in Ext.P2 Rules of the State Government and Ext.P6 are almost identical and as according to the petitioner, her husband was a freedom fighter in terms of Ext.P6 Scheme, he is eligible for the benefit of pension. Petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application enclosing Ext.P1 series of documents. Ext.P8 postal receipt shows that Ext.P7 was sent to the 2nd respondent and the District Collector. There has not been any response to Ext.P7 and it is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that her husband being eligible for the benefit of Ext.P6 and his status as a freedom W.P.(C).33069/09 3 fighter having been already recognized by the State Government, pension due under Ext.P6 is liable to be granted. On the other hand, learned ASGI submits that under the Rules, unless the case of an applicant is recommended by the State Government, the Central Government pension is inadmissible and that the Central Government is yet to receive recommendation by the State Government. Therefore, according to the ASGI, they are not in a position to consider the request. 5. Admittedly eligibility of the petitioner's husband for the benefit of Ext.P2 has been recognized by the State Government. If, as a matter of fact, her husband satisfied the conditions in Ext.P6, her claim is also eligible to be considered for the benefit. From Exts.P2 and P6 what is noticed is that the conditions are almost similar. If so, Government will have to accept the claim of the freedom fighter for the benefit of Ext.P2. Therefore, there is no reason why her claim for the benefit of Ext.P6 should not be favourably recommended. Having regard to the above facts, I fee it only appropriate that the 3rd respondent should make recommendations to the 2nd W.P.(C).33069/09 4 respondent on an expeditious basis and the 2nd respondent shall sanction the benefit of Ext.P6 Scheme to the petitioner. 6. Taking into account that the petitioner is a widow of 88 years of age, I think the circumstances do not justify any further delay in the matter. 7. The writ petition is therefore, disposed of directing that the 3rd respondent shall, if no recommendation is already made, make necessary recommendations to the 2nd respondent in the light of the provisions of Ext.P6. It is directed that this shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such recommendation, 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders in the matter within two months thereafter. Petitioner may forward a copy of this judgment to respondents 2 and 3 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs