IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 27858 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PUNNAKKAN NARAYANAN, S/O.LATE AMBU, AGED 83 YEARS, PUNNAKKAN HOUSE, AZHIKKAL.P.O, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (F.F.P-B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. SANIL KUMAR FOR R1 &2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27858 of 2008 -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. NO.6979 OF 1985 DATED 18.11.1985 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. NO.884 OF 1995 DATED 27.3.1996 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. NO.14970 OF 1996 DATED 17.3.2004 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN R.P. NO.377 OF 2005 IN O.P. NO.14970 OF 1996 DATED 31.5.2005 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHASILDAR DATED 26.10.2005 ISSUED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 17.11.2005 TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2006 EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.04.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLE WHICH APPEARED IN A JOURNAL 'NATIONAL SOUVENIR' IN 1992 WRITTEN BY SRI. O.GOPALAN TITLED 'KAZHINJAKALA SAMBAVANGAL' EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE NORTH KERALA KAVITHA SAHITHYAVEDI DATED 25.04.2004 EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER PUBLICATION 'SUDHINAM' DAILY DATED 10.05.2004 EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED BY THE 'SUDHINAM' DAILY DATED 13.03.2001 EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT, KAVITHA SAHITHYAVEDI, KANNUR DATED 08.10.1991 EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITE UP BY SRI.O. GOPALAN REGARDING THE PETITIONER AND HIS ASSOCIATION WITH THE FREEDOM STRUGGLE MOVEMENT WP(C).No. 27858 of 200 -3- EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN 'SPODANAM' A DAILY NEWSPAPER DATED 04.12.1986 EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE 'MATHRUBHUMI' NEWS PAPER DATED 10.08.1988 EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM REGARDING THE NON GRANT OF PENSION APPEARED IN THE 'SUDHINAM DAILY. EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SRI. NELLIYODEN RAMAN NAIR DATED 24.10.2007 EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.13883/2006 DATED 10.8.2007 EXT.P20: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.10.2007 EXT.P21: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 31.10.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. EXT.P22: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA (GENERAL ADMINISTRATION) (F.F.P.B) DEPARTMENT DATED 15.01.2008 EXT.P23: TRUE COPY OF THE FREEDOM FIGHTERS' PENSION RULES. EXT.P24: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SUFFERING ISSUED BY SRI. MANIKOTH KUMARAN DATED 5.7.1991 EXT.P25: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE CONVICT REGISTER OF SRI.MANIKOTH KUMARAN FROM THE CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR WITH TYPED COPY /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.27858 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 23rd October,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, who is an octogenarian, aged 84 years, claims to be a freedom fighter. The present writ petition is apparently the 6th attempt made by the petitioner before this Court, for a direction to the Government to give him freedom fighters pension. He contends that he had participated in the freedom struggle movement. Though he had applied for pension under the Central Scheme, it was not granted. He then approached this Court in O.P.6979 of 1985 which was disposed of under Ext.P1 judgment holding that the materials then placed on record were not sufficient to proceed on the premise that the authorities had not acted inconformity with the scheme for freedom fighters pension. Petitioner’s liberty to approach the authorities again with adequate materials was reserved. He seems to have done so and the District Collector had forwarded a report on his application. This Court by W.P ( C) No.27858 of 2008 2 Ext.P2 judgment directed the Government to take a decision. Though the Government considered the report of the District Collector, it rejected the petitioner’s application for pension. 2. On a challenge by the petitioner before this Court in O.P.14970 of 1996, by Ext.P3 judgment dated 17.3.2004 this Court observed that there is no merit in the original petition and dismissed the same. This Court reserved the liberty of the petitioner to again approach the Government with any additional materials. The view was substantially confirmed by the Court which as per Ext.P4 order passed in the petition for review making it clear that if the District Collector at a later point of time gives an opinion favourable to the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the Government . 3. Further materials which the petitioner had produced before the District Collector essentially seem to be certain press reports and other references to certain publications of a contemporaneous nature referring to the participation of the petitioner in the freedom struggle. W.P ( C) No.27858 of 2008 3 4. Ultimately, petitioner had produced a certificate issued by one Manikoth Kumaran, an acknowledged freedom fighter certifying that to his knowledge, the petitioner had remained underground from 1940 to 1942, inter alia, as part of Quit India Movement. Thereafter, when the petitioner approached this Court in WPC No.13883 of 2006, inter alia reiterating his claim for pension, this Court by Ext.P19 judgment held that the reasons given by the Government to reject the claim of the petitioner as per letter dated 6.1.2006 does not seem to be incorrect. The decision did not warrant any interference. This Court again reserved the right of the petitioner to produce fresh materials before the District Collector with an observation that such materials may be considered by the District Collector. 5. The matter was again considered by the Government and as per Ext.P22 order, the Government took the view that the petitioner has not submitted any documents along with the certificate of suffering issued by Sri.Manikoth Kumaran and therefore, further materials W.P ( C) No.27858 of 2008 4 produced are not sufficient to substantiate the petitioner’s claim for freedom fighters pension. Ext.P22 has been challenged in the writ petition. 6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent supporting Ext.P22. 7. Heard Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 8. No doubt, the petitioner may treat as pensioner acknowledging his participation in the freedom struggle movement. But it would only be appropriate to note that the grant of a pension either under the Central Scheme or State Scheme is obviously not the only test for determining whether the person was a freedom fighter or not. True, where the State Government or the Central Government grants pension to any person in acknowledgment of his contribution as a freedom fighter, the same can be considered as adequately indicative of the role of the pensioner in the freedom movement. But ultimately the grant of such pension is regulated by the W.P ( C) No.27858 of 2008 5 provisions of the orders which have been issued in this regard. The principal material that is required by the Government as proof of the claim made by a freedom fighter is an Extract from the Jail Register showing that he has undergone imprisonment for the requisite period. The petitioner claims to have remained underground for more than 6 months. 9. The certificate issued by an accredited acknowledgment freedom fighter, Sri.Manikoth Kumaran Ext.P24 will show that according to Sri.Kumaran, petitioner remained underground for more than six months from 1940 to 1942 and this was on account of his participation in the Quit India Movement. But I note from Ext.P23 Government Order read along with Pension Rules that a person should have remained underground for more than six months consequent on a warrant for arrest having been issued against him. Even if the certificate Ext.P24 is accepted as reflection of the true state of affairs, it still would not satisfy the pension requirements. There is no material to show that the petitioner had remained W.P ( C) No.27858 of 2008 6 underground pursuant to a warrant for arrest having been issued against him. 10 For all these reasons, I am of the view that the decision taken by the Government denying the petitioner pension under the State Scheme does not seem to be suffer from any error of law or an error consequent upon perverse appreciation of facts or materials warranting interference by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. I am therefore constrained to decline jurisdiction. 11. I have no doubt in my mind and the feeling has been reinforced by the submission made by Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar also that petitioner seems to be in pursuit of this litigation with a determination and tenacity not merely for the monetary benefits that may accrue in his favour. But a senior citizen of this Country like the petitioner would be well advised to appreciate the fact that the denial of freedom fighters pension by the authorities need not be considered as derogatory of his participation in the historical movement and the nation W.P ( C) No.27858 of 2008 7 would be grateful for his participation like those of several others, who had also contributed their mite to the freedom struggle. Posterity will acknowledge the same. There is no reason why he should free aggrieved by the attitude taken by the authorities. Authorities will have to go by the rules and he is not in a position, unfortunately, to produce the materials to satisfy the requirements of the Rules. He need not consider himself distressed by the said situation. I make these observations only in the form of an opinion and hope that the petitioner will, at least now, take a decision to call it a day in so far as the pursuit of this litigation is concerned. Writ Petition is bereft of merit and hence dismissed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.27858 of 2008 8 W.P ( C) No.27858 of 2008 9