IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 2657 of 2007(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.KAMALADHARAN, VETTICKAL VELI, 82 YEARS, KANNANKARA P.O., THANNEERMUKKOM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.2657/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIOENR DT. 2.5.98. P2:- COPY OF THE STATE PENSION ORDER DT. 25.7.89 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. P3:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND THE ORDER IN CASE NO.P.E. 8/1122 OF THE C.J.M. COURT, ALAPPUZHA DT. 10.10.01. P4:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KUN JAN SUKUMARAN DT. 2.5.98. P5:- COPY OF THE TRUE EXTRACT OF THE CONICT REGISTER RELATING TO PANICKER SUKUMARAN DT. NIL ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDANT OF CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY SECRTARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DT. NIL. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DT. 5.7.01. P8:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF NARAYANAN RAMANKUTTY DT. 29.10.01. P9:- COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE CONICT REGISTER RELATING TO NARAYANAN RAMANKUTTY DT. 27.1.55. P10:- COPY OF THE CENTRAL PENSION ORDER ISSUED TO RAMANKUTTY BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DT. 26.7.99. P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS DT. 12.9.06. P12:- COPY OF THE REPORT NO.K.DIS. DT. 8411.88/A3 OF THE TAHSILDAR CHERTHALA DT. NIL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.52/CC/K/12/2006-FF(SZ) DT. 12.9.06 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.2657 of 2007-N - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner who was an applicant for pension under the Swathanthratha Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P11 order rejecting the same by the Central Government. The main reason stated in Ext.P11 to reject the application is that the State Government's recommendation is negative. It is also stated that there is no primary evidence in support of the claim and the secondary evidence made available, are also not acceptable. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that he was an active participant of Punnapra – Vayalar Struggle and hence the police arrayed him as an accused before the Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha in case No.P.E.8/1122 ME. The court issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. In order to evade arrest, the petitioner went underground for more than six months from 12.3.1122 ME to 11.12.1122 ME. Ext.P1 is the application submitted by the petitioner and Ext.P3 is the non-availability of records certificate produced from Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. Ext.P4 is the personal knowledge certificate produced from WPC 2657/07 2 another freedom fighter, viz. Shri P.K.Sukumaran. Ext.P8 is the certificate issued by a prominent freedom fighter, Shri Narayanan Ramankutty. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the State Government in not recommending the application is not correct, especially in the light of Ext.P12 report forwarded by the Tahsildar when his application for pension was considered under the Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension Rules. It is submitted that he is a bonafide freedom fighter and therefore the application ought to have been recommended. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of this court in Sadananda Swamy v. Union of India (2004 (2) KLT SN page 76, Case No.92). 4. The first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the rejection of the application. It is stated that there was no acceptable evidence in support of the application and the State Government has not recommended it also. 5. Ext.P1 is the application submitted by the petitioner. In column No.11(ii), it is stated that the period of underground suffering is 9 months. No mention is made about any specific case in which the petitioner was involved. In the certificates Exts.P4 and P8 issued by Shri Kunjan Sukumaran and Shri Narayanan Ramankutty, the certifiers have not WPC 2657/07 3 specified the case in which the warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. Of course, learned counsel relied upon Ext.P3, the non- availability of records certificate issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. But in the absence of the number of the case either in Ext.P4 or in Ext.P8, it cannot be said that the action of the State Government in not recommending the application is unsustainable. Even though heavy reliance was placed on Ext.P12, the facts stated therein will not also improve the case of the petitioner. It is true that there is an observation that he went underground to evade arrest, but the case number is not mentioned and finally it is stated that in the absence of court records, the Tahsildar is not in a position to report whether he was an accused in the case No.PE 8/1122 ME. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner requested for a reconsideration of the matter at the hands of the State Government in the light of Ext.P12, I am not persuaded to accept the plea in the light of the fact that neither in Ext.P1 nor in Exts.P4 and P8, the case number in which the petitioner was involved, has not been mentioned. In that view of the matter, Ext.P12 will not have any persuasive effect on the State government also. 6. In Ext.P11, it was found that the petitioner has not produced any acceptable primary evidence or any acceptable secondary evidence. The WPC 2657/07 4 recommendation of the State Government was also wanting. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the order Ext.P11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/