NEENA T Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls into question Ext.P5 order of the Government, whereby, her request for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension, on account of the fact that she is a dependent divorced daughter of late T.Achuthan, has been rejected solely on the ground that two of her brothers are well to do and that they will take care of her.

(2.) The petitioner asserts that the conclusions in Ext.P5 are conjectural as it can ever be, because there can be no justifiable assumption drawn that brothers are always expected to take care of their sisters, particularly when they have their own families to take care of. She thus prays that Ext.P5 be set aside and the competent Authority of the Government of Kerala be directed to reconsider her claim, based on the Statutory Scheme; thus leading to an appropriate fresh order, without any further delay.

(3.) Sri.P.S.Appu - learned Government Pleader, however, rose in support of Ext.P5, saying that an inquiry was conducted by the District Collector and it was found that the petitioner's brothers are all well placed and are earning well. He submitted that, therefore, it was justified for the Government to have presumed that they would take care of the petitioner; and hence that she would not fall into the "most deserving cases", as is required under Rule 11A of the Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension Rules, 1971 ('Rules', for short).