KATHREENA GREGORY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an applicant for grant of Swathantrata Sainik Samman pension. Her late husband Sri. Ouseph Gregory was a freedom fighter who had actively participated in the Punnapra Vayalar movement. An arrest warrant was issued against him by the Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha in case No. P.E.7/1122 Malayalam Era (M.E.) and in order to evade the arrest he had gone underground for a period of about ten months from 08/03/1122 M.E. to 09/01/1123 M.E. and as such he was entitled to get the benefit of Swathantrata Sainik Samman pension (SSS pension). He was granted the State pension as per order of the District Collector, Alappuzha dated 23/03/1994. He died on 13/06/2003 and the petitioner is getting the dependent family pension as per Ext. P1 order. Ext. P2 is the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of Central pension. Exts. P4 and P5 are the non availability of records certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha in case No. P.E.7/1122 M.E. Ext. P6 is the personal knowledge certificate issued by Sri. H. K. Chakrapani and Exts. P7 and P8 are the order of sanction of SSS pension to him and the true copy of the extract of the convict register of Central Prison in respect of him. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to forward their verification cum recommendation report.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is stated that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence for proving her claim. In para. 5 it is admitted that the petitioner's husband was sanctioned Kerala Freedom Fighters' Pension considering his claimed participation in the Punnapra Vayalar struggle and as per the recommendation of the District Advisory Committee. It is also admitted that the petitioner is receiving the family pension after his death.

(3.) The recommendation, it appears, was not made relying on two facts. The first one is that in the application for State pension the period he had remained underground is shown as 25/10/1946 to 20/12/1947. But in the application for Central pension the underground life is claimed upto 24/08/1947. It is, therefore, averred that the claim is doubtful. The question is whether the said approach made is correct in the light of the facts emerging from the records produced in this case.