V.M. LEYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the widow of a freedom fighter, is aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondents in cancelling the Kerala Freedom

(2.) Heard Sri.N.Raghuraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner's husband, late P.M.Kuttappan was a freedom fighter who had participated in the freedom movement of the country and he was duly sanctioned Kerala Freedom Fighters' Pension in accordance with the Kerala Freedom Fighters' Pension Rules, 1971, as per Ext.P-1 proceedings dated 16.04.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Alappuzha. It is not in dispute that thereafter he has been duly disbursed freedom fighters' pension under the State Scheme as evidenced from Ext.P-1 (a) series. During his life time, he had submitted necessary declaration as per Ext.P-2 to include his wife (petitioner herein)as his nominee for receiving the continuous/dependent pension under the abovesaid scheme after his death. Ext.P-2 was duly recommended by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar-Ambalappuzha as per Ext.P-3 addressed to the 2nd respondent-District Collector, which was accepted by Ext.P-4 dated 05.08.2008. The petitioner's name was thus incorporated as the nominee to receive the dependent/continuous pension after the death of the freedom fighter. The petitioner's husband had died on 08.01.2011. The petitioner was thereupon disbursed Kerala Freedom Fighters' Continuous/Dependent Pension under the State Scheme, after the death of her husband. Later, the dependent pension sanctioned to the petitioner was stopped by the respondents with effect from 01.02011, without informing the petitioner about the reasons therefor. The petitioner could learn that the continuous pension was stopped in her case, on account of the amendment made to the Kerala Freedom Fighters' Pension Rules, 1971, whereby it was provided that the widows are not eligible for the said continuous pension, if they are receiving any pension other than the Central Freedom Fighters' Continuous/Dependent Pension and that in view of this amendment, the pension was stopped as she was a pensioner of the Revenue Department of the State. The petitioner would pray that the amendment made to the abovesaid Rules as per G.O(P)No.355/2010/GAD dated 08.11.2010 for disqualifying widows from receiving continuous pension, if they are in receipt of any pension other than the Central Freedom Fighters' Dependent Pension, is unconstitutional and arbitrary. In that regard, it is specifically contended that in the case of the petitioner, her right to get continuous pension accrued when her husband had taken steps pursuant to Ext.P-2 in 2008 for getting her name registered as his nominee for getting the dependent pension and that therefore, the said right which is a vested right cannot be taken away on the basis of the impugned amendments etc.