IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 33680 of 2006(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.A. SUDHAKRAN, PUTHEN PARAMPILL, KOTTAMKULANGARA, AVALUKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33680 of 2006(H) APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits:- P1: Copy of the application of the petitioner dtd.25.6.1981. P2: Copy of the copy application and the order dtd.16.6.1981 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. P3: Copy of the certificate of Sri.P.K.Chandranandan, Ex.MLA, dtd.17.6.1981. P4: Copy of the order of the second respondent dtd.22.5.1999. P5: Copy of the representation of the petitioner dtd.24.7.2004. P6: Copy of the certificate of Sri.H.K.Chakrapani dtd.23.7.2004. P7: Copy of the true extract of the convict register of the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram dtd. Nil. P8: Copy of the order of the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi dtd.18.6.2003. Respondents' Exhibits:- Nil. (True copy) PA to Judge. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= WP(C).No.33680 of 2006-H. ========================= Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims freedom fighter's pension under the Kerala Freedom Fighters' Pension Rules. His claim is that he had actively participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar struggle and he was arrayed as an accused in case No.PE 7/1122 ME. Pursuant to the same a non-bailable warrant was issued against him. He went underground for more than six months from 7.3.1122 ME to 6.12.1122 ME. Ext.P1 is the copy of the application said to have been submitted by the petitioner on 25.6.1981. He has produced certificate from Sri.P.K.Chandranandan Ex.MLA. By Ext.P4 the application was rejected stating that his deposition before the District Advisory Committee is not acceptable. Thereafter he filed WP(C).No.33680 of 2006-H. -: 2 :- Ext.P5 after producing the certificate issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani. The certifier is a recipient of Central pension and he had also undergone long periods of imprisonment. Seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the said application,this writ petition has been filed. 2. Ext.P7 is the extract of the convict register in respect of Sri.H.K.Chakrapani and Ext.P8 is the order sanctioning SSS Pension to the certifier. 3. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that there is no documents by way of primary evidence to support the case. It is stated that going by Circular dated 31.12.1993 the applications received after 31.3.1994 would be considered only on production of official records to prove the suffering. In fact, there is no such stipulation in the scheme. The Circular cannot modify the terms of main scheme. The cut off date, if any, can onlyfor administrative convenience and that cannot be taken as a ground to reject the claim. The above principles have been laid down by the Apex WP(C).No.33680 of 2006-H. -: 3 :- Court in the decision reported in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 2127). The relevant portion in para.4 is extracted below: “It is common knowledge that those who participated in the freedom struggle either at the national level or in the erstwhile Nizam State, are scattered all over the country and most of them may even be inhabiting the remotest parts of the rural areas. What is more, almost all of them must have now grown pretty old, if they are alive. Where the freedom fighters are not alive and their widows and the unmarried daughters have to prefer claims, the position may still be worse with regard to their knowledge of the prescribed date. What is more, if the Scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it ill-behoves the Government to raise pleas of limitation against such claims. In fact, the Government, if it is possible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fighters or their dependents and approach them with the pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same. That would be the true spirit of working out such Schemes. Hence, whatever the date on which the claimants make the applications, the benefit should be made available to them. The date prescribed in any part or future notice inviting the claims should be regarded more as a matter of administrative convenience than as a rigid time-limit.” Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider WP(C).No.33680 of 2006-H. -: 4 :- Ext.P5 along with Exts.P6, P7 and P8 and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-