IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 23797 of 2004(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.MEENAKSHI AMMA, W/O.LATE KRISHNAN NAIR PALOTTU VADAKKATHIL HOUSE, KANNIMEL, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM-3. BY ADVS. MR.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE MRS.R.RANJINI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS DIVISION, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADVS. MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN ASG FOR R1 MR. M.A. ASIF GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23797 of 2004 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.N2-10312/2000 DT 23.3.2000 ISSUED BY DIST. COLLECTOR. EXT.P2: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.9097/2000 DT, 19.10.2000 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER NO.85999/FFP.A3/2000/GAD DT 26.12.2000. EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.4889/01 DT.6.8.2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER NO.7593/FFP.A3/2003 GAD DT 7.1.04 BY R2. EXT.P6: COPY OF JUDGMETN IN O.P.NO.15616/99 DT 15.12.99 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P7: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.4377/2000 DT.8.8.01 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P8: COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT.21.3.83 ISSUED BY SRI. R. KARUNAKARAN PILLAI EXT.P8(a): COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT.7.7.98 ISSUED BY SRI.UMMINI RAGHAVAN. EXT.P8(b): COPY OF ORDER (NARC) DT 1.2.01 ISSUED BY IST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 23797 OF 2004 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of MAY, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the widow of Sri. K. Krishnan Nair who is no more. Sri.K. Krishnan Nair filed an application for freedom fighters' pension. He was granted freedom fighters pension under the freedom fighters pension scheme of the State Government. He applied for pension under the Swathanthratha Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of the Government of India. But his case was refused to be recommended by the State Government. The petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No.9097/2007. The State Government was directed to reconsider the claim of Sri.Krishnan Nair by Ext.P2 judgment. By Ext.P3, the claim of Sri. Krishnan Nair was rejected. The petitioner again filed O.P.No.4889/01, pointing out the case of similarly placed freedom fighter by name, Sri. P. Haridas. By Ext.P4 judgment, this Court directed reconsideration of Krishnan W.P.(C)No.23797/2004 2 Nair’s case afresh without discriminating him. But again by Ext.P5 order, the Government refused to recommend his case for pension on the ground that he has not proved six months' imprisonment as required under the Scheme. By that time, Sri. Krishnan Nair died. Therefore, the matter was pursued by the petitioner, his widow. By Ext.P5 order, the petitioner was intimated that since the co-prisoners' certificates produced by Sri. Krishnan Nair are not acceptable, the case of Sri. Krishnan Nair cannot be recommended to the Central Government. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5. 2. The petitioner’s contention is that the requirement to prove imprisonment of six months of a freedom fighter for being eligible for pension under the S.S.S. Pension Scheme is to produce non-availability of record certificate along with certificates from two co-prisoners freedom fighters who have proven jail sufferings of minimum one year which are produced as Exts.P8 and P9 issued by M/s. R. Karunakaran Pillai and Ummini Raghavan, wherein the details of their imprisonment are graphically detailed. There is absolutely no material available with the State Government to disprove the W.P.(C)No.23797/2004 3 certificates and therefore, Ext.P5 order is patently unsustainable, is the contention raised by the petitioner. The petitioner also points out that in the decision of this Court in W.P.(C)No.19925/03, this Court has held that the co-prisoner’s certificate issued by R.Karunakaran Pillai is acceptable for grant of pension. The very same view was taken by another learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)No.3117/04. In Ext.P7 judgment of this Court in O.P.No.4377/2000, a learned Single Judge accepted a certificate issued by Sri.Ummini Raghavan. In the above circumstances, there is absolutely no reason to reject the claim of the petitioner’s husband for S.S.S.Pension is the contention raised by the petitioner. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the second respondent as well as the first respondent. The first respondent would take a contention that they are unable to give pension to the petitioner in respect of her husband, since the State Government has not recommended his case. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit taking the stand that the co-prisoners' certificates produced by the petitioner are not acceptable, since they do not have minimum imprisonment of one year as per official records. W.P.(C)No.23797/2004 4 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Apart from the bald statement of the second respondent that the co-prisoners' certificates produced by the petitioner’s husband cannot be accepted since the co-prisoners do not have minimum imprisonment period of one year as per official records, there is absolutely no material to disprove the said certificates. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the decision cited by him in the case of other freedom fighters, the co-prisoners' certificates issued by the very same persons were found acceptable by this Court. The second respondent has also not cared to produce copies of the official records allegedly relied upon by them. In view of the above circumstances, I have no alternative but to accept the contention of the petitioner that her husband has duly proved the minimum six months' detention in a prison by producing co-prisoners' certificates and non-availability of record certificate which are documents to be produced to prove the eligibility for pension under the S.S.S. Pension Scheme. I am rather dismayed by the attitude of the respondents in the matter of dealing with such applications filed by the persons who have sacrificed their life for the country. Even after this W.P.(C)No.23797/2004 5 Court has specifically held that the co-prisoners' certificates issued by the very same freedom fighters are acceptable for the purpose of grant of pension, the Government again take the stand that their certificates are not acceptable. I am constrained to observe that this is on account of lack of patriotism on the part of the persons who decide such matters. These persons who decide such matters in their cozy armchair in an air conditioned room should pause to think about the sacrifice made by those freedom fighters to enable them to sit in that cozy chair in an air conditioned room. Even if an applicant may not have proved his claim, he may not cease to be a freedom fighter. Therefore such applications, even if rejected should have been dealt with, with the respect those persons deserve. 6. In the above circumstances, Ext.P5 is quashed. I am satisfied that the petitioner’s husband has sufficiently proved his eligibility for pension under the S.S.S.Pension Scheme. In this connection I also note that the very same State Government has sanctioned freedom fighters pension for the petitioner’s husband under the State Scheme. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed on the following terms. W.P.(C)No.23797/2004 6 Within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the second respondent shall forward a communication to the first respondent recommending pension to the petitioner under the S.S.S.Pension Scheme in recognition of the sacrifice of her husband as a freedom fighter. On receipt of the same, the first respondent shall pass orders granting pension in respect of Sri. Krishnan Nair under the S.S.S.Pension Scheme and disburse arrears also to the petitioner from the date of application by her husband within one month from the date of recommendation from the second respondent as directed above. In view of the recalcitrant and unpatriotic attitude of the second respondent, I was inclined to order costs also to the petitioner but exercising restraint, I refrain from doing so. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.23797/2004 7 W.P.(C)No.23797/2004 8