IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 29182 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJAMMA MADHAVAN W/O. LATE V.K.MADHAVAN, THEKKEVELIYIL, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP.B) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 29182/2008. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF P.K.C DT. 16-2-1008. EXT.P2 ENQUIRY REPORT DT 26-2-2008. EXT.P3 LETTER DT. 3-3-2008. EXT.P4 LETTER DT. 3-3-2008. EXT.P5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING.\ EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF P.K.C. DT. 5-6-1985. EXT.P7 GOVT. ORDER DT. 5-2-2008. EXT.P8 LETTER DT. 31-5-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 29182 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be the widoe of a freedom fighter. She claims to have submitted an application claiming freedom fighters' pension under the State scheme in respect of her late husband. The same was rejected by Ext. P8. The reason stated therein is that in view of Ext. P7 Government Order dated 5-2-2008, making it compulsory for applicants for freedom fighters pension filing applications after 31-3-1994, to produce documentary evidences from official records like warrant of arrest, court records, jail records etc., clearly showing the applicant's suffering in connection with the freedom struggle. The petitioner's application was refused to be considered since the same is not accompanied by such documents. The petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P8 orders. 2. The petitioner would contend that Ext. P7 is bad in law. According to the petitioner, the Government cannot take away retrospectively the right of a freedom fighter to get pension on the basis of the scheme available as on the date of application. The petitioner would also try to argue that in fact the petitioner submitted an application in 1980 itself. 3. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner in the light of the arguments advanced by both sides. 4. Freedom fighters pension is not a right as such. It is a benefit conferred by the Government to freedom fighters by a Government Order. As such, there is no vested right in any person to get freedom fighters pension. The law is settled that the prohibition in taking away a right retrospectively is only in respect of vested rights. The petitioner could not also satisfy me that the petitioner had submitted an application prior to the date of Ext. P7 order, namely, 5-2-2008. The petitioner herself has produced Ext. P1 certificate, W.P.C. No. 29182/08. -: 2 :- which is dated 16-2-2008. The fact that one of the certificates produced along with the application is dated 16-2-2008 shows that the application could not have been submitted prior to 16-2-2008. That being so, I do not think that I can countenance the contention of the petitioner that she filed an application even prior to Ext. P7. Of course, the petitioner tried to contend that in view of Ext. P4, it must be taken that the petitioner had submitted an application prior to Ext. P7 order. But Ext. P4 is dated 3-3-2008, which is also after Ext. P7. The very fact that the petitioner has chosen to challenge Ext. P7 itself would show that the petitioner had not submitted an application prior to Ext. P7. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/