IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19828 of 2006(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.ACHUTTY, W/O.THE LATE K.M.MOHAMMED, KOORIMANNIL MELEMANNIL HOUSE, ANAKKAYAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, P.F.DIVISION, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MKT., NEW DELHI-110003. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP.A), DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.FRANCIS JOSEPH KURISINKAL, ADDL.CGS FOR R1 SRI. M.R. SABU - GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 SRI. S. KRISHNAMOORTHY - CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/ 08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19828 of 2006(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF CERTIFICATE DTD 18.2.1981 ISSUED BY THE COMMANDANT MALABAR SPL. POICE, MALAPPURAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.6/1/97-FF(P) DTD 20.1.1998 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF R1. EXT.P3: COPY OF LETTER DATED 1/1/1999 ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.7.2000 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P5: COPY OF LETTER DTD 23.8.2000 FROM THE PETITIONER TO R1. EXT.P6: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3.6.2003 IN O.P.NO.17417/2000. EXT.P7: COPY OF CERTIFIED COPY OF STATEMENT FILED BY M.S.P. COMMANDANT IN O.P.NO.11149/2000. EXT.P8; COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.8.2003 IN O.P.NO.11149/2000. EXT.P9; COPY OF LETTER DTD 20/12/2004 ISSUED BY THE HUSBAND OF PETITIONER. EXT.P10: COPY OF LETTER DTD 30.8.2005 FROM THE PETITIONER TO R1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1-A: COPY OF THE MINISTRY'S LETTER NO.119/MSP/16//99FF SZ DATED 18/07/2000. EXT.R1-B: COPY OF THE MININSTRY'S LETTER NO.52/CC/KER/98/2006-FF (SZ) DATED 29/08/06. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. acd S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19828 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the widow of a Constable of the Malabar Special Police, who was dismissed from service with effect from 20.4.1946. Members of the Malabar Special Police Force, who had been dismissed from service on account of an agitation in connection with the freedom struggle were accepted as freedom fighters eligible for pension under the Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The petitioner's husband filed an application for pension on 18.3.1998 under the SSS Pension Scheme of the Government of India before the State Government. The State Government recommended the case of the petitioner's husband for pension by Ext.P3. But, by Ext.P4 order, the 1st respondent Union of India informed the petitioner's husband that as per a category vise list forwarded by the State Government on 14.2.2000 in respect of dismissed, disbanded, removed and resigned members of the Malabar Special Police W.P.(C)No.19828/06 2 Force, against the petitioner's husband name, the category is shown as 'resigned' and therefore he is not eligible for pension under the SSS Pension Scheme. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to call for the entire records which led to Exhibit P4 and to quash the same by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order. (ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents to grant pension and other benefits under the Swatantrata Sanik Samman Pension Scheme of 1980 to the petitioner from the date of Exhibit P2”. 2. Counter affidavits have been filed by the 1st respondent as also the 2nd respondent taking the same stand as in Ext.P4. In the State Government's counter affidavit, they take the stand that the petitioner's husband is shown as 'resigned'. But 'resigned' categories are also recommended for pension. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. At the outset, I note that although in Ext.P4 order, the 1st respondent relies on a category vice list dated 14.2.2000 forwarded by the State Government, they have not chosen to produce the same before this Court to substantiate the contention inspite of the fact that they have chosen to file a W.P.(C)No.19828/06 3 counter affidavit. Ext.P6 is a judgment of this Court., wherein the question of persons coming under the category of 'disbanded' was considered by this Court and it was held that such persons are also entitled to pension under the SSS Pension Scheme. Apparently, as is evident from Ext.P7 statement filed on behalf of the commandant in O.P.No.11149/2000, the commandant had taken the stand that all these kinds of persons are persons, who have been discharged or dismissed from service for taking part in the agitation which is considered as part of the freedom struggle. 4. To cap it all, by Ext.P1 certificate the Commandant of the MSP categorically certifies that the petitioner’s husband was dismissed from service with effect from 20.4.1946, as per DO 449/46 dated 18.5.1946, for participation in MSP strike. In this connection it must be noted that in the meanwhile the petitioner's husband died and that is why the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. In view of Ext.P1 certificate and the fact that even persons who were stated to be disbanded have been found to be eligible for pension under the SSS Pension Scheme, I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner’s husband was dismissed from service and is eligible W.P.(C)No.19828/06 4 for pension under the SSS Pension Scheme. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to the arrears of pension due to her husband as also pension due to her as the widow of a freedom fighter. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order is quashed. It is declared that the petitioner’s husband is entitled to freedom fighters’ pension under the SSS Pension Scheme with effect from the date of his application namely, 18.3.1998 and the petitioner is entitled to pension with effect from the date of death of the petitioner’s husband, which is 25.5.2005. The 1st respondent is directed to pass orders granting pension to the petitioner’s husband and the petitioner as directed above, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Arrears shall be disbursed to the petitioner within another one month. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.19828/06 5 W.P.(C)No.19828/06 6