IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 23 of 2009() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 19.09.2008 IN WPC.26073/2007 .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER IN THE WP ---------------------------------- SMT.KAMALAKSHI AMMA, W/O.N.DAMODARAN PILLAI (LATE FREEDOM FIGHTER),AGED 79 YEARS, KALEEKKAL THEKKATHIL VEEDU, MEENATHU CHERRY, KAVANAD.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR. C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P. -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FREEDOM FIGHTERS PENSION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. NOBLE MATHEW THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.A. No. 23 OF 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.09.2008 in W.P.(C) No. 26073 of 2007, dismissing the Writ Petition, by making the observation as follows : “Petitioner is challenging Ext. P15 order whereunder the State Government has declined pension to the petitioner's late husband under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme. Even though counsel for the petitioner submitted that members of the Committee found in favour of the claimant, it is seen from Ext. P15 that District Collector reported that there was no proof of deceased husband of the petitioner suffering imprisonment for more than one year. Since petitioner has not got recommendation from the District Collector for grant of pension, I find no ground to interfere with Ext. P15. W.P. is accordingly dismissed.” 2. It is not in dispute that the husband of the present appellant, one Damodaran, had initially approached the District Collector Kollam, seeking State pension by submitting an application under the Kerala Freedom Fighters' Pension Rules, 1971. It is not in dispute that the said application W.A No. 23 of 2009 :2: came to be rejected as per Ext. P12. It is also not in dispute that the Advisory Committee headed by the concerned District Collector, though recommended for grant of pension, as per Ext. P11, it came to be rejected as per Ext. P12. Aggrieved by the rejection of the said application, the husband of the present appellant went before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 23312 of 2003. At paragraph 5 of the said judgment, the learned Single Judge, after referring to the vagueness in the details mentioned in the application said to have been submitted by the husband of the present appellant, directed to amend the application at Ext. P1, by incorporating correct details that the application was filled up with the help of the others and that in fact husband of the appellant suffered imprisonment as a freedom fighter by participating in Quit India Movement and also the struggle against the independent Travancore Movement. 3. It is not in dispute that the application came to be amended, as directed by this Court, as per Ext. P14. To the misfortune of the applicant again there was rejection for grant of freedom fighters' pension as per Ext. P15 dated 21.06.2006. Aggrieved by this order at Ext. P15, the appellant approached this Court again, by filing W.P(C) No. 26073 of 2007, knocking at the doors of this Court with the fond hope that at least she would be able to see freedom fighters pension of her husband during her life time. To the W.A No. 23 of 2009 :3: misfortune of the appellant, the writ petition came to be dismissed for the reasons stated above. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader on the controversy in issue. 5. It is not in dispute that the husband of appellant had sought for State pension, which is governed by the Kerala Freedom Fighters' Pension Rules 1971. The procedure contemplated for grant of pension under this Rules in also placed before us. So far as eligibility criteria, it prescribes seven norms and if the applicant complies with any of the norms, the eligibility criteria would be complied with. So far as eligibility criteria, according to the application of the appellant's husband is concerned, he was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months, for participating in the Law Breaking Movement, from 30.08.1938 to 12.03.1939. We are not concerned with relaxation in eligibility, as the applicant has not sought for any relaxation of the eligibility criteria. So far as documents to be submitted, the details are required to be informed as per Rules 15 and 20. The enquiry has to be made by the Collector or his authorized representative. It is not in dispute that an Advisory committee is formed in the office of the District Collector of every district, which has W.A No. 23 of 2009 :4: to scrutinize the application and the relevant information submitted. Thereafter recommendation to the Government for grant of such pension will be forwarded. The documents or the information required is complied as per Exts. P9 (a) and (b). As a matter of fact, Ext. P9(a) is the true extract of the convict register of the Central Prison, Trivandrum pertaining to one Gevarghese Unnunni, a co-prisoner of Mr. Damodaran Pillai. As per this document, Mr. Gevarghese Unnunni was in imprisonment for a period of two years. This man was released on 16.01.1117. Ext. P9(b) is the convict register pertaining to Raghavan Pillay Karunakaran Pillay, who was in imprisonment between 9th Makaram 1115 to 8th Makaram, 1116 i.e. one year. He was released on 06.02.1116. As a matter of fact these two documents were submitted during the life time of Damodharan Pillai along with his original application submitted for grant of freedom fighters' pension and Ext. P11 has a reference to these two documents. 6. When the judgment at Ext. P13 in the first round of litigation directs that an amendment to the application has to be made by incorporating the necessary details, naturally it would mean that the application is one and the same, which came to be submitted by Damodaran Pillai, which was continued by his wife - the present appellant subsequent to the death of Mr. Damodaran Pillai. In that view of the W.A No. 23 of 2009 :5: matter, one has to consider the application of Damodaran Pillai along with all the documents submitted by Damodaran Pillai in order to finally decide whether the applicant fulfills the criteria or the eligibility for grant of freedom fighters pension. 7. While, the orders at Ext. P15 indicates that, the Collector was asked to submit whether the two certifiers had undergone imprisonment for one year, which is one of the requirement to be fulfilled by the applicant, the Collector seems to have informed that the certifiers had not undergone one year imprisonment. The Collector says that there is no acceptable record of evidence produced to prove minimum required one year's imprisonment of the certifiers. Exts. P9 (a) and (b) are the jail certificates produced along with original application. As a matter of fact Exts. P9(a) and (b) were very much available with the file of Mr. Damodaran Pillai. The reference to this at Ext. P15 would only indicate that the concerned District Collector Kollam did not even bother to look into relevant documents, produced as Exts. P9(a) and P9(b). Based upon this report of the Collector, Government has rejected the application, as per Ext. P15. Unfortunately, reading of the remarks of the District Collector referred to at Ext. P15 was misread by the learned Single Judge, as if the deceased husband of the appellant was required to establish that the he ought to W.A No. 23 of 2009 :6: have been imprisoned for more than one year in the freedom struggle. 8. Non-reading and misreading of the documents has led to the situation, whereby the appellant was thrown back to this Court again seeking for freedom fighters' pension of her husband. The exercise done by the concerned authority till now would only indicate that they did not even look at the documents they were suppose to look into at the time of sending the report. If only the Collector had taken the pains of calling for the file of the application of Mr. Damodaran Pillai, he would have definitely noticed Exts. P9(a) and (b). There is no rule, which indicates that a particular authority alone has to give the certificate pertaining to the certifiers. If certifier's information, whether they were co-prisoners or not, who were also in the jail at the relevant point of time, the only document any freedom fighter could secure is the register extract of the convicts from a particular jail concerned. Exts. P9 (a) and (b) are such documents. If these documents are not considered as evidence, what should be the documents to be considered by the Collector is also not indicated. Therefore, we are only of the opinion that the concerned Collector did not look into the file at all while sending his report as indicated at Ext. P15. If only Exts. P9(a) and (b) were correctly read and reported, probably the time and money of the appellant would have been saved. W.A No. 23 of 2009 :7: 9. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that, the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. Ext. P15 is quashed, directing the respondent authorities to re-look into the matter, in the light of above observations and consider the application of late Damodharan Pillai, pursued by his wife, the present appellant, after securing the entire file from the Collector, Kollam. We direct the respondent authority to do the above exercise within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/ MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge