THANKAMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P-12 order dated 28.01.2016 issued by the 1st respondent-Union Government, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of Freedom Fighters' dependent Pension under the central Swatantrata Sainik Samman (SSS) Pension Scheme, 1980, on account of her deceased husband's participation in the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement has been rejected. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.K.K.Sathish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for R1-Union of India and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent and additional respondents 3 and 4.

(3.) Without getting entangled into the various factual aspects of this case, it is to be noted that the petitioner has placed reliance on a Personal Knowledge Certificate (P.K.C) issued by one Sri.H.K.Chakrapani, who was granted Freedom Fighters' Pension both under the State Scheme and the Central Scheme and who had also participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement, in support of the claim that her deceased husband, T.A.Krishnan had to remain underground for more than the requisite 6 months period on account of warrant of arrest issued to him due to his active involvement in the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement in case No.P.E.5/1122 ME on the file of the First Class Magistrate's Court, Cherthala. The petitioner's deceased husband was the recipient of the Freedom Fighters' Pension under the State Scheme as evidenced by Ext.P-1 dated 25.11.1980. As the petitioner's application under the Central Scheme was properly responded to by both the 2nd respondent-State authorities and the 1st respondent-Union Government authorities, the petitioner was earlier constrained to file a Writ Petition (Civil) No.17636/2005 in which this Court had rendered Ext.P-7 judgment dated 06.10.2008, whereby the respondent-State Government was directed by this Court to consider the claim afresh and to take into account the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani and the other certificates and documents produced by the petitioner and to take a decision in the matter of issuance of the fresh verification-cum-entitlement report and the recommendation in that regard that will be decided by the State Government and that the decision of the State Government in that regard should be conveyed to the 1st respondent-Union Government, upon which the said respondent-Union Government was directed to pass final orders on the application of the petitioner within 2 months thereafter etc. It appears that pursuant Ext.P-7 judgment, the 2nd respondent-State Government had issued Ext.P-8 letter dated 09.03.2009, holding that the petitioner does meet the eligibility criteria and evidentiary requirements of the Central Scheme and that the petitioner is eligible for the grant of Freedom Fighters' dependent family pension and NARC was also issued by the State Government. It appears that thereafter, the 2nd respondent-State Government had issued Ext.P-9 letter dated 03.06.2010 addressed to the 1st respondent-Union Government stating that in the light of the legal opinion received from the office of the Advocate General of Kerala, in the Contempt of Court Case instituted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent-State Government has decided to recommend the case of the petitioner along with their verification-cum-entitlement report. But it appears that even in Ext.P-9 of the 2nd respondent-State Government has formally issued the NARC. The State authorities did make any attempt to ascertain from the competent authorities-the District Collector, Alappuzha, etc. as to the availability or otherwise of records and had taken into account Ext.P-3 NARC issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Cherthala, Ext.P4 NARC issued by the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha etc. Since no further action was forthcoming from the 1st respondent-Union Government even after the issuance of Ext.P-9, the petitioner was again constrained to approach this Court by filing writ petition as W.P(C)No.16358/2013 which was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P-11 judgment dated 13.01.2016, whereby the respondent-Union Government was directed to take a final decision on the claim of the petitioner in the light of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent-State Government as per Ext.P-9 herein. It is thereafter, the 1st respondent-Union Government has again rejected the claim of the petitioner as per the impugned Ext.P-12 order dated 28.01.2016. The main grounds recited in Ext.P-12 for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that the formal NARC has been issued by the State Government in the prescribed proforma and that in the absence of NARC, the secondary evidence produced as per the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri. H.K.Chakrapani cannot be considered. Further that, the State Government has in certain other cases raised doubts on the reliability and acceptability of Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani etc. and further that the said Sri.H.K.Chakrapani who has issued Ext.P-5 Personal Knowledge Certificate is an eligible certifier as per the Central Scheme and further that, enquiry has been initiated by the State Government in respect of discrepancies given in similar Personal Knowledge Certificates issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani on the one hand and certain other certifiers on the other hand in favour of one Shri.K.Varghese etc.