STATE OF KERALA Vs. SAVITHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE the petitioner's husband was alive he had filed an application on 19/07/1981 inter alia requesting the respondents to grant him pension under Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme of the State Government. That application came to be rejected by a responsible officer. Thereafter, the petitioner's husband had filed a representation before the Honourable Chief Minister of the State. Even there also, the petitioner's husband did not get any relief. Aggrieved by the action and inaction, omission and commission committed by the respondents, the petitioner's husband was before this Court in OP 6944 of 2003. The learned Single Judge, taking a very sympathetic view of the matter, by his judgment dated 19/02/2004, directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. While disposing of the Original Petition, this Court had also observed that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law, keeping in view of the documents, which are available in the records, produced by the petitioner. After the disposal of the Original Petition, once again the State Government had passed an order dated 17/09/2004. In that, a reference was made by them to the circular instruction issued by the State Government on 31/12/1993. Nowhere in the order, they have referred to the documents produced by the petitioner such as Ext. P5 to P8 and other certificates said to have been issued by the persons who had the knowledge of petitioner's husband's involvement in the freedom movement.

(2.) IN fact, the respondents have taken note of production of several certificates by the petitioner along with his application. But they have not made any comments on those certificates. The net result is rejection of the petitioner's application, which necessitated the petitioner to approach this court once again in WP (C) 31822 of 2004. The learned Single Judge, being of the opinion that the petitioner is driven from pillar to the post, has issued a positive direction to the respondents to grant the Freedom Fighters' Pension to the petitioner. The State was not satisfied with this order. Therefore, they had filed a Review Petition before this Court, inter alia requesting the learned Single Judge to review the said order. The said Review Petition is also rejected with certain observations and modifications. The State, once again, is questioning the original order as well as the order passed in the Review Petition by the learned Single Judge, in this Writ Appeal.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein sought to justify the impugned order.