JANUAMMA K K W/O LATE BALAKURUP Vs. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AFFAIRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's late husband, Balakurup, was an Ex-MSP personnel, who was dismissed from service for having participated in a strike, which has been accepted as part of the freedom struggle of India. THE petitioner's husband filed an application dated 3.6.1998 for pension under the Swathanthratha Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. Subsequently, the Central Government recognized dismissal from MSP for having participated in the freedom struggle, as part of the freedom struggle, by order dated 20.1.1998. Notwithstanding the same, by letter dated 21.7.2000, the respondent, on a wrong appreciation of facts, rejected the claim of the petitioner's husband on the ground that the petitioner's husband was not dismissed from service, but he resigned from service. It appears that the said decision of the respondent was not challenged by the petitioner's husband. He died in 2006. Subsequently, by an application dated 23.10.2009, the petitioner applied for pension under the SSS Pension Scheme. As usual, that was not also considered favourably by the respondent, despite the State Government having recommended the claim for pension. THE petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 3377 of 2009. In that writ petition, by Ext.P2 judgment, this Court categorically found that as per the certificate issued by the Commandant of the Malabar Special Police, the petitioner's husband was actually dismissed from service and therefore he as well as the petitioner, who is the widow of the petitioner, was entitled to SSS pension. Based on that decision, the respondent was directed to pass orders. Since the respondent did not pass orders as directed in the judgment, the petitioner filed Cont. Case (C) No. 336/2011. During the pendency of the same, the respondent passed Ext.P4 order dated 5.4.2011 sanctioning family pension to the petitioner for the suffering of her husband in the freedom struggle, but only with effect from the date of Ext.P2 judgment, namely, 24.11.2009. When the contempt case was taken up for hearing, although the petitioner raised the contention that pension should have been paid with effect from the date of the original application, the learned Judge closed the contempt case without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the date of effect of family pension in appropriate other proceedings. It is pursuant thereto that this writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) FOR such a simple matter on the question as to the date of effect of the order granting pension, the respondent has filed a long counter affidavit containing 19 pages, which practically contains nothing. I had time and again reminded the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that the practice of the Assistant Solicitor General of India filing in this court, counter affidavits prepared by some clerk in the ministry, is demeaning to the very office the Assistant Solicitor General holds. I have been telling this to him for the last more than 5 years, but, unfortunately, the same has fallen on deaf ears. The Assistant Solicitor General continues to simply dump the voluminous counter affidavits on this Court in which there is no contribution by the Assistant Solicitor General, resulting in waste of valuable time of this Court in sifting through the voluminous unnecessary materials supplied in the counter affidavits, which is of no help to this Court in deciding such cases. All I can say is that this amounts to demeaning not only his own position but also the profession as well. I am of opinion that the Assistant Solicitor General should insist on filing counter affidavits prepared or at least finalised by him. That would be more convenient to the Court as well because if the counter affidavit is prepared by an advocate who is conversant with the facts of the case and the procedure of this Court, this Court will not have to go through the voluminous counter affidavit filed by the clerk in the Ministry's office unnecessarily wasting time of this Court. I am of opinion that the time has to come to reject such counter affidavits in future. The Ministry may take note of this aspect, failing which this Court will be forced to impose costs also on the person filing the counter affidavit thus.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail.