IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34221 of 2007(Y) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- L.CHELLAMMA AMMA, W/O.LATE N.VELU PILLAI, AGED 71 YEARS, LAKSHMY SADANAM, KALIKODE, POOTHAKULAM P.O., VIA PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DIST., KERALA. BY ADV. MR.M.BALAGOVINDAN MR.M.R.SASITH PANICKER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, F.F.DIVISION (INA), LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. ADV. MRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, CGC FOR R1 & 2 MR. M.A. ASIF GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34221 of 2007 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF RELVANT PORTIONS OF PENSIN SCHEME 1980. EXT.P2: COPY OF APPLICATION USBMITTED BEFORE R1 DATED 24.10.1972. EXT.P3: COPY OF CERTIFICATE FROM THE ALL INDIA INA COMMITTEE DT 29.01.1970. EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER FROM R2 DT 21.11.1973. EXT.P5: COPY OF CO-PRISONER CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY N.VASUDEVAN NAIR. EXT.P6: COPY OF REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE R1 DT 2.01.1988. EXT.P7: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE R1 AND 2 DT 18.2.1998. EXT.P8: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.NBO.24899/2000 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT. 26.6.2003. EXT.P9: COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM R1 ON 23.2.2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R2(a): COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.4.03. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF ORDER DT 8.10.04. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.34221 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of MAY, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the wife of late Sri.Velu Pillai, who died on 11.3.1993. Prior to his death, claiming that he was a freedom fighter, he submitted an application for pension under the Swathanthratha Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of the Government of India. While the application was pending, the said Velu Pillai died. Since that application was not properly considered, the petitioner pursued the matter and filed O.P.No.24899/2000 before this Court. By Ext.P8 judgment, this Court directed the respondents to take appropriate decision in the matter. Thereafter, the fourth respondent favoured the petitioner with Ext.P9 communication by which the petitioner was directed to file a fresh application and documents. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any intimation regarding the application. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner W.P.(C)No.34221/07 2 has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order directing respondents 1,2 &3 to grand the S.S.S. Pension due to the petitioner and her husband as per Ext.P1 with effect from 24-10-72 within a time limit prescribed by this Hon'bel Court. b. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to pay 18% interest on the amounts due to petitioner and her husband from the date when it became due till the date of payment”. 2. A counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 is available in the file. Although the learned Government Pleader claims to have filed a counter affidavit, the same is not available in the file. Neither the learned Government Pleader nor the Central Government Standing Counsel was able to satisfy me that after Ext.P8 judgment, an order was communicated to the petitioner, either rejecting or recommending the application of the petitioner. Of course, along with the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 they have produced Ext.R2(a) and R2(b) which are the order stated to have been issued by the Government of India and the recommendation of the State Government respectively. But neither the State Government nor the Central Government was W.P.(C)No.34221/07 3 able to convince me by any reliable evidence that the same was communicated to the petitioner. Without communicating the order, a poor widow cannot do anything to controvert the reasons on which her application was rejected. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The third respondent shall forward a copy of Ext.R2(b) to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The second respondent shall forward a copy of Ext.R2(a) to the petitioner within one month from today. It would be open to the petitioner to file a fresh petition challenging the said orders appropriately. A poor lady claiming to be a widow of a freedom fighter has approached this Court twice. Because of the failure on the part of the respondents in providing her with a copy of the order passed against her, she was unable to contest the matter properly. That poor widow, who can ill-afford a further litigation, is therefore entitled to costs of this writ petition at least to enable her to challenge the orders stated to have been passed without informing her about the same. Accordingly, W.P.(C)No.34221/07 4 respondents 1 and 3 shall pay an amount of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand five hundred only) each to the petitioner as costs of the litigation, the petitioner has already pursued. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.34221/07 5