IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 9931 of 2004(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- K. BHASKARA PILLAI, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, KOTTUKAL, KOTTUKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R.LAKSHMINARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9931/2004 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RODER DTD. 28/07/1987 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24/10/1991 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/01/1998 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 13/11/1998. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/04/1999 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 10/05/2002. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 03/12/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ANNEXURE II FORM OF APPLICATION ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED ON 9/08/1985 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 30/09/2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) NO.9931 of 2004-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of July , 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a freedom fighter now aged 89 years. He was an applicant for grant of pension under the State Freedom Fighter's Pension Scheme. The application was initially rejected by the District Collector as per Ext.P1. Then he filed an appeal before the Government and the Government rejected the same for want of acceptable documentary evidence, as per Ext.P3. Thereafter, he filed a fresh representation, Ext.P4 along with 11 documents. The petitioner has produced the co-prisoners' certificates from Shri K.P. Parameswaran Nair, Shri N.S. Krishna Pillai, Shri N. Kunjukrishnan and Shri Jamal Labba who are prominent freedom fighters. But still, his application was rejected by Ext.P5 mainly for the reason that the jail records of Shri Jamal Labba has not been produced. It is also stated that the District Collector has not recommended his application. Therefore, he was directed to produce any acceptable materials. Again, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation. By Ext.P7, that representation was also rejected on the ground that the jail records of the certifiers have not been produced and that the District Collector has not recommended the WPC 9931/2004 -2- application. It is also stated that he was not a major at the time of his participation in the freedom movement. 2. The petitioner has filed a detailed reply affidavit and an application producing some more documents. Ext.P8(1) is the copy of the application. Ext.P8(3) is the true extract of the convict register relating to Shri Jamal Labba and Ext.P8(4) is the N.A.R.C. from the criminal court. Ext.P8(6) is the copy of the judgment relating to Shri Parameswaran Nair showing that he was convicted. Ext.P9 is the minutes of the Advisory Committee of the District Collector, Trivandrum dated 30.9.2002. Para 5 shows that the Advisory Committee recommended his application, but the Collector did not recommend it on the ground that he was not a major at the relevant time. 3. In the light of the fact that the jail records and other documents are available, the stand taken in Exts.P5 and P7 requires reconsideration. The matter will have to be reconsidered by the authorities in the light of the documents mentioned above. But one aspect has to be considered. The finding that since the applicant was not a major, his claim cannot be considered, cannot be sustained. As far as the freedom movement is concerned, it is well-known that people of all walks of life including students, teachers and others have actively participated in the movement WPC 9931/2004 -3- and have suffered imprisonment, etc. This court and Apex Court have held in various cases also that merely because the applicant was not a major, the claim cannot be rejected. The Apex Court in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and others {(2001) 8 SCC 8} has held that the applications of the freedom fighters for pension should be considered liberally. In an earlier case, in Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India and others (AIR 1993 SC 2127), while considering the case of freedom fighters, it was held by the Apex Court that a technical approach should not be taken and the matter has to be considered keeping in view the object of the scheme. As seen above, in this case the Advisory Committee has recommended the case of the petitioner, but the Collector did not recommend it on the ground that he was only a minor as revealed from Ext.P9. That reason cannot be sustained. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that at any rate, he was of the age 18 at that time. 4. Therefore, there will be a direction to the District Collector to recommend the application of the petitioner for sanction of pension in accordance with the decision of the Advisory Committee as reflected in Ext.P9. The same shall be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the first respondent WPC 9931/2004 -4- shall re-consider the matter and take a decision on the merits, after considering the various certificates including the jail certificates of Shri Jamal Labba and other certificates produced by the petitioner. Petitioner shall produce Exts.P8 and P9 along with a copy of this judgment before the District Collector for appropriate action and transmission to Government. The Government shall pass final orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of recommendation from the District Collector. Since it is reported that the petitioner is aged 89 already, expeditious steps shall be taken in the matter by the authorities concerned to finalise the same within the time limit provided in this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/