SOBHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an unmarried daughter of deceased K. Narayanan, a Freedom Fighter. She claims that as a freedom fighter her late father was entitled to get Freedom Fighters' Pension under the State and Central Schemes for Freedom Fighters' Pension. The petitioner submits that her father late Narayanan was accused in case PE No. 8/1122 before the Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha for participating in the Punnapra- Vayalar struggle. An arrest warrant was issued against him and he was declared as a proclaimed offender and he went underground for one year from October, 1946 to November, 1947. He was given State Freedom Fighters' Pension in 1986 considering his participation in the struggle and consequent underground suffering. He died in 1994. Thereafter his wife was receiving the pension. On her death in the year 1996 the petitioner is getting the State Pension as per Ext.P-2. The Central Government has recognised the Punnapra-Vayalar struggle as a, freedom struggle for the purpose of granting Freedom Fighters' Pension in 1998. Accordingly the petitioner filed Ext.P-1 application before the Central Government for sanction of Freedom Fighters' Pension under the Swathantratha Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1986 framed by the Central Government. She states that she has produced the relevant documents also in support of the claim as evidenced by Exts.P-4 to P-8. However, the Central Government did not take any action on Ext.P-1. Therefore, she approached this Court and this Court by Ext.P-9 judgment directed the Central Government to consider and dispose of Ext.P-1. By Ext.P-11 order, the Central Government has rejected the claim of the petitioner for the reasons stated in Ext.P-11 order. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P-11 order in this Original Petition.

(2.) From Ext.P-11 it is seen that the State Government has forwarded a Report No. 92992 /FFP.A2/2001/GAD, dated 29.4:2002 which contains the recommendation of the State Government. Although the State Government has chosen to file a counter-affidavit in this Original Petition, they have not cared to produce the said letter along with the counter-affidavit which letter appears to be the basis for rejection of the claim of the petitioner as seen in Ext.P-11. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel has produced the file relating to the case for my perusal, which contains the said letter. The said letter shows that the State Government has not recommended the case of the petitioner for Freedom Fighters' Pension under the Central Government as she has not produced sufficient documentary evidence to prove her claim that her late father was a freedom fighter. However, the said letter completely does not mention the fact that in fact the State Government had sanctioned State Freedom Fighters' Pension to her late father which is now being received by the petitioner apparently on the basis of the very same materials. As such, the said report dated 29.4.2002 is contradictory in nature. It is interesting to note that in the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government, they gave a somewhat different reason for not recommending pension to the petitioner. What they say in the counter-affidavit is that the Scheme of Pension envisaged by the Central Government and that devised by the State Government are different in character and receipt of State Pension is not a sine qua non for receipt of Central Pension. However, a reading of the counter-affidavit of the State Government and Ext.P-11 would show that the primary reason for rejecting the application of the petitioner is that no documentary evidence is produced by the petitioner to show that her father had suffered one year underground suffering. At the same time in the counter-affidavit of the State Government it is stated thus:

(3.) Ext.P-11 gives four reasons for rejecting the application as follows: