SUBHADRA K. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the widow of a freedom fighter having served Indian National Army (INA) for nearly 7 months from 10/04/1944. In the course of the service of the deceased as above, he suffered imprisonment for nearly 7 months from August 1945 to March 1946. The factual position in this regard is sought to be asserted by the petitioner with reference to Ext. P1 certificate issued by the Kerala Ex - I.N.A Association; Ext. P2 certificate issued by a co - prisoner and also Ext. P12 certificate issued by All India I.N.A Committee with regard to the concerned aspects mentioned therein. The case of the petitioner is that the deceased husband of the petitioner had made an application (Ext. P3) as early as in 1974 for granting pension by the Central Government under the Freedom Fighters Scheme. Since the same was not considered for quite long, after the demise of the husband, the petitioner took up the matter by filing Ext. P5 application dated 03/01/1985 and produced certain documents. While so, when the petitioner was given pension payable in respect of Freedom Fighter by the State, as per Ext. P4 order dated 31/07/1984, the petitioner requested to transpose the application already preferred by the late husband and to consider her eligibility for the benefit.

(2.) Since nothing was heard, the petitioner preferred Ext. P6 reminder dated 23/05/1992 which was sent by registered post and thereafter approached this Court by filing OP No. 21252/1999 for appropriate reliefs, which culminated in Ext. P8 verdict dated 18/08/1999 directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application and pass appropriate orders. However, without honouring the verdict in right spirit and perspective, the 2nd respondent passed Ext. P9 dated 27/10/1999 rejecting the application, for the reason that the application was not accompanied by a proper Co - prisoner's Certificate (CPC). Met with the situation, the petitioner preferred Ext. P10 application on 28/06/2005 pointing out the actual facts and figures including as to forwarding of the relevant certificates. Since the same did not turn to be fruitful, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition.

(3.) A counter - affidavit has been filed from the part of the respondents contending the salient features of the Scheme and as to non - compliance of the of the norms on the part of the petitioner. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Scheme is specific and so far as the terms of the Scheme are not under challenge, the contention of the petitioner that Ext. P2 certificate issued by a Co - prisoner who had undergone imprisonment for a lesser term than 'one year' is not liable to be accepted and no relief is liable to be extented to the petitioner.