UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUBHADRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the 1st respondent in the writ petition challenging judgment dated 30/06/2015 in WP(C) No. 29317/2013 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition quashing Ext. P6 and directing the appellant to grant freedom fighter's pension to the petitioner within a period of three months.

(2.) The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner, being the wife of Sri M.K. Karunakaran, applied for freedom fighter's pension under the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme on the ground that her husband late Sri M.K. Karunakaran had participated in the freedom movement of the nation. According to the petitioner, her husband remained underground for six months and more and he was a proclaimed offender. Petitioner's husband earlier filed an application for pension and there was delay in processing the same. After his death, petitioner filed WP(C) No. 36025/2004 before this Court. The learned Single Judge directed the Central Government to grant pension to the petitioner. In the appeal filed as W.A. No. 1054/2012, the Division Bench allowed the appeal directing the petitioner to furnish necessary details and apply afresh.

(3.) Petitioner submitted a fresh application in the prescribed format, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P3. It was contended that her husband had participated in the Indian freedom struggle including the Quit India movement and arrest warrant was issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur in C.C. No. 28/1121 M.E. and he was evading the detention order. Petitioner also obtained a Non -Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungalloor as the records relating to the order of arrest was not available. She also produced a certificate issued by a prominent freedom fighter Sri P.A. Joseph who certified that her husband remained underground evading arrest for a continuous period from February 1942 to August 1947. Enquiry was conducted by the State Government and they reported that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria for grant of pension. Ext. P5 dated 16/08/2013 is the report of the State Government. Central Government rejected her claim as per Ext. P6 order dated 14/10/2013. It is contended that the reasons stated were absolutely incorrect and her husband, being an eligible person, she is entitled for pension under the scheme.