IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 27666 of 2003(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.D. PAUL, MYLAKKACHALIL HOUSE, MUTHOLAPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.C.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, LOKMANYA BHAVAN, KHAN MKT, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (F.F.P-B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.P. PRADEEP FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).27666/03 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- COPY OF APPLICATION DT.6.6.01 EXT.P2:- CERTIFICATE OF ABSCONDENCE DT.4.6.01 EXT.P3:- ORDER OF R2 DT.29.4.02 EXT.P4:- ORDER OF R1 DT.22.11.02 EXT.P5:- ORDER OF R2 DT.15.3.03 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 27666 of 2003 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009. J U D G M E N T --------------------- 1. The petitioner, who claims to have participated in the freedom struggle of the country, is challenging the rejection of his applications for allotment of Freedom Fighter's Pension. According to the petitioner, he took part in “Quit India” movement in the year 1942 while he was a student. It is claimed that he also participated in “Travancore State Congress” movement in the year 1944-45, which is also recognized as a freedom struggle. The petitioner claims that he went underground for about 9 months apprehending arrest pursuant to warrant issued in the case registered in connection with the participation in the freedom struggle, and then he had to escape to the neighbouring State of Tamil Nadu in order to continue his education from there. 2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for grant of pension under the “Swathanthra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme” (S.S.S.Pension Scheme). The said application was filed supported by Ext.P2 certificate issued by one Sri. John George WP(C)27666/03 2 Thottam. The certifier in Ext.P2 is an awardee of Central Freedom Fighter's Pension for being participated in “R.I.N. Mutiny” and was undergoing imprisonment from 1946 to 1948. Through Ext.P2 it is certified that the petitioner remained underground for more than 6 months, from October 1944 to June 1945, on account of his participation in the freedom movement. The application for grant of pension under the State Freedom Fighter's Pension Scheme was rejected by Ext.P3. It is noted therein that the certificate produced is lacking details regarding name of the freedom movement in which the petitioner participated, and also lacking details of the case in which arrest was ordered against him, for which he went underground to avoid arrest. Further it is also noticed that the certificate produced along with the application is not in the prescribed form, and no proof is produced to show that the certifier had undergone detention for a period of 2½ years. In the meanwhile, the application submitted by the petitioner for S.S.S. Pension was also rejected through Ext.P4. It is specifically mentioned therein that the petitioner failed neither to produce evidence based on any official records, from the police or from the court, to prove his underground sufferings nor had produced WP(C)27666/03 3 any “Non-Availability of Record Certificate” (NARC) in lieu of such evidence. 3. The petitioner again submitted application for State Freedom Fighter's Pension, on 14.1.2003, allegedly supported by some documents. But the said application was also rejected by the State Government as per Ext.P5 order. In Ext.P5, it is stated that no documents were produced in order to prove that the certifier Sri. John George Thottam had undergone detention for 2½ years. No jail certificate in this regard was produced and what was attached along with the application is only the recommendation of the State Government with respect to the pension application of the certifier. The said recommendation does not reveal detention of the certifier for a period of 2½ years. Further, there is no evidence produced to prove that he had undergone confinement in jail in connection with the 'R.I.N.Mutiny'. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 in this writ petition. 4. The 2nd respondent, in their counter affidavit contents that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence based on any official records, in order to substantiate his claims. He could not mention the case number in which he became forced to go WP(C)27666/03 4 underground. The petitioner has not even produced 'NARC' from the court, and there is no acceptable documentary evidence for recommending him for grant of S.S.S.Pension. Further it is stated that there is no proof produced with respect to imprisonment of the certifier, Sri. John George Thottam, and there are discrepancies noted with respect to the date of grant of Central Pension to the certifier. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, and the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Based on the reasons stated in Exts.P3 and P5 letters, counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner was not able to satisfy the required conditions for grant of pension under both the Schemes. There is total lack of documents and information required for recommending grant of pension is the contention. The petitioner is not in a position to dispute the position, or to contend that he had satisfied all the requirements as provided under the scheme. According to the petitioner, he could not produce records regarding his personal sufferings and details of the case registered against him, due to non-availability of any records in this respect. However, WP(C)27666/03 5 considering the fact that the petitioner has not satisfied all the requirements, I do not find any illegality or error in the orders issued rejecting his applications, as per Exts.P3, P4 and P5. Hence the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the authorities concerned, if he could able to procure convincing records as required under the schemes. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE okb