IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17752 of 2006(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.M. KASIM, AGED 93 YEARS, S/O. PEER MOHAMED, SAIDALI COMPOUND, CANTONMENT SOUTH, KOLLAM-691 001. *ADDL. 2ND PETITIONER: BEEMA W/O. LATE P.M.KASIM, SAIDALI COMPOUND, CANTONMENT SOUTH, KOLLAM-691. (*IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.09.07.2009 ON I.A.NO.8007/09) BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR SMT.G.VIDYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSION AND SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFPA) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).17752/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SZ/19/41/74-FFVI DT.16.9.1974 EXT.P2:- COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.19/1/GENL/74-FFSZ DT.11.10.76 EXT.P3:- COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED TO R1 DT.22.10.76 EXT.P4:- COPY OF APPLICATION FOR FF PENSION SUBMITTED ON 20.8.73 EXT.P5:- COPY OF PROCEEDING NO.D.DIS.121344/83/N1 DT.13.7.83 EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SZ/19/41/74-FFVI DT.12.1.78 EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE D.O.LETTER NO.2247/MOS(ST)/VIP/94 DT.12.9.94 EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1169/FFP.A3/94/GAD DT.6.1.94 EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.10.12.98 EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.106953/FFP-A3/98/GAD DT.05.1.99 EXT.P11:-COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.17.1.02 EXT.P12:-COPY OF THE INTIMATION DT.20.1.03 EXT.P13:-COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT DT.4.9.01 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 17752 OF 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The original first petitioner in this writ petition was a freedom fighter, who was sanctioned with 'Freedom Fighters Pension' by the Central Government as per Ext.P1 with effect from 20.8.1973, on a provisional basis. Subsequently the 1st respondent had suspended the above said order on 11.10.1976, and thereafter it was cancelled as per Ext.P6 order, dt:12.1.1978. It was also recommended for recovery of amounts already paid. Since various attempts made by the first petitioner for having a reconsideration of the decision fetched no positive results, he approached this Court on an earlier occasion, in OP.No:22830/01. Through Ext.P11 judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P6 order observing that the findings arrived at the enquiry referred to in Ext.P6 was not disclosed or extracted and Ext.P6 does not show any reason for cancellation of the pension sanctioned. The 1st respondent was given liberty to pass fresh orders if they choose so. Ext.P12 is the order issued by the 1st respondent subsequent to Ext.P11 judgment. Observing that the State Government had not recommended the application for grant of pension on two occasions, vide its reports dt:19.8.1976 W.P.(C).17752/06 2 and 3.12.1977, it is informed that the 1st petitioner is not eligible for the pension. Further the 1st respondent found that the certificates produced along with the application was not proper and it does not contain all informations required under the scheme. Hence it is found that the applicant had not fulfilled the minimum eligibility conditions and therefore the 1st respondent is not in a position to restore the pension. Ext.P12 proceedings is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The above writ petition was filed on 6.7.2006. But the 1st petitioner died on 27.8.2006, shortly after filing of this writ petition. The wife of the 1st petitioner filed I.A.8007/09 for getting herself impleaded as additional 2nd petitioner along with I.A.No.8008/09 seeking to set aside abatement. Those petitions are allowed and the wife of the 1st petitioner is impleaded as 2nd petitioner. 3. As stated above, Ext.P12 decision of the 1st respondent refers to two reports of the State Government, dt.19.8.1976 & 2.12.1977, through which they declined to recommend for Freedom Fighters Pension. The learned counsel for petitioners had produced copy of another letter with reference No.120230/FFP.A3/92/GAD, dt:23.6.1993 issued by the State Government addressed to the Secretary to Government of India, Minstry of Home Affairs. On a perusal it is revealed that W.P.(C).17752/06 3 the application of the 1st petitioner was recommended for “Swathanthrata Sainik Samman Pension”. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows. “ The case in question was discussed at the District Advisory Committee held on 1.6.1992 and the members of the District Advisory Committee unanimously recommended this case for SSS Pension as they were aware of the role of the applicant in the freedom struggle. The District Collector has recommended the case for SSS Pension. Since the certificates produced found acceptable and the movement in which the applicant participated has been recognised for grant of SSS Pension. In the above circumstances, the case of Shri.P.M. Kassim may be reconsidered for SSS Pension.” 4. It is evident that while issuing Ext.P12 order, the above quoted recommendation was not available with the 1st respondent. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed out that, as per the provisions of the Swathanthrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, the widow of the freedom fighter is an eligible dependent entitled for grant of SSS Pension. Therefore sought interference of this Court to issue directions to the 1st respondent for re-consideration of the matter and for grant of pension to her. But it is evident that the 1st respondent had no occasion to consider the recommendations of the State Government, as contained in the letter dt:23.6.1993. W.P.(C).17752/06 4 So also, it is for the 1st respondent to decide on the eligibility of the 2nd petitioner for getting pension. It is also to be decided as to whether the cancellation can be treated as annulled and in such a case as to who are the persons eligible to receive the arrears. Under such circumstances it is only just and proper in the interest of justice to relegate the 2nd petitioner to the 1st respondent for getting appropriate relieves. In the result the 2nd petitioner is directed to submit a representation to the 1st respondent seeking re-consideration of Ext.P12, producing copy of the letter of the State Government dt:23.6.1993, and a copy of this Judgment. The 1st respondent is directed to re-consider the matter on receipt of such representation and to take a final decision thereof, as early as possible at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb