IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 31836 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SMT.KURUVAIKANDY JANU ALIAS BACHI, W/O.LATE PARAPPARATH KRISHNAN, AGED 90 YEARS, KADAMBOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. KANDAMBOOR, EDAKKAD, CANNANORE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS DIVISION, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-110 003. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR, PIN-688 011. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. OF INDIA, SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN, CGC. R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.JOSEPH GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 31836 of 2010(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17/02/1989. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MATHRUBHOOMI. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03/04/1998. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).31836/2010 .............................................. Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the wife of late Parapparath Krishnan. According to th petitioner, her husband was a freedom fighter and was also in receipt of freedom fighters' pension under the Scheme framed by the second respondent. On the aforesaid basis, petitioner made an application to the first respondent under Swathanthra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. From Ext.P3 it appears that on receipt of the petitioner's application dated 19.3.1996, they took up the matter with the second respondent and the State Government did not recommend her case for lack of documentary evidence. On that basis, petitioner's application was rejected by the first respondent. This order is dated 3.4.1998. It is challenging Ext.P3 order, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 18.10.10. 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that in the absence of favourable recommendation from the State Government duly supported by valid reasons, they are unable to consider the request. Third respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, which shows that there was no documentary proof, W.P.(C).31836/11 2 enabling the petitioner to claim the pension and that it was therefore, that the petitioner's case could not be recommended. 3. First of all, this writ petition is highly belated in as much as the order of rejection of the application made by the petitioner, is dated 3.4.1998. No explanation, much less a satisfactory explanation, is forthcoming from the petitioner to condone the delay. Therefore, the relief sought for, has to be declined on that ground itself. 4. Even otherwise, the ground on which the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner is the absence of any documents to substantiate the jail or underground suffering of the petitioner's deceased husband. Not only that the petitioner has no case that she had produced any documents and that the same has been ignored by the respondents while declining the recommendation or passing Ext.P3, even in the writ petition itself, petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence, apart from Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is a certificate issued by the Mathrubhomi Printing & Publishing Company and the said certificate cannot be acted upon as the same is not one permissible under the Scheme. Therefore, the claim of the W.P.(C).31836/11 3 petitioner is totally unsubstantiated. The fact that the petitioner is a State pensioner also does not by itself make her eligible for the said benefit. In such circumstances rejection of the claim evidenced by Ext.P3 order cannot be said to be illegal. Therefore, the writ petition fails and has to be rejected. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has other documentary evidence to substantiate her claim that her husband was a freedom fighter entitling the grant of Central Government pension. If she has any such documentary evidence, it is upto the petitioner, to make an application to the respondents producing such documents, in which event, it is upto them to consider the same. With the above clarification, the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge