UNION OF INDIA Vs. ANANDAVALLY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in WP (C) No. 15199 of 2008 is the appellant. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge of this Court directed the appellant to pay pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme framed by the Government of India to the respondent - writ petitioner.

(2.) The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim of the respondent was based on the conviction suffered by her deceased husband in CC No. 18/125 ME on the file of the Court of First Class Magistrate, Cherthala. According to the appellant, this case is not one included in the register of Punnapra Vayalar cases kept in the office of the District Collector, Alappuzha and therefore, the said conviction, even if it was suffered by the husband of the appellant, did not form part of Freedom Movement qualifying for getting pension under the aforesaid Scheme. However, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the leaned counsel for the appellant for the reason that in Ext. P5 judgment in WP (C) No. 190 of 2005, to which the appellant is also a party, it has been specifically found by this Court that the respondent is the widow of late Sri. P. K. Karunakaran, who had actively participated in the Punnapra - Vayalar Movement, in relation to which CC No. 18/125ME, on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Cherthala was registered. This finding of this Court contained in Ext. P5 judgment, to which the appellant is also a party, has become final and binding. Therefore, in view of the finality that the said judgment has attained, we are unable to accept the conclusion.

(3.) Secondly, it was contended that the evidence produced by the respondent for claiming pensionary benefits were secondary in nature and therefore, the payment of pension could have been ordered only from the date of judgment and not from the date of application. This contention also lacks any merit for more than one reason. First of all, this contention was not raised before the learned Single Judge, nor is it raised in the pleadings. Secondly, a reading of the judgment shows that the claim made by the respondent was on the basis of the extract of the Convict Register of the Central Prison, which is a piece of primary evidence. Therefore, this contention is also rejected.