LENNYAMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the widow of Sri Pouleenju Achappan. It is averred that her husband was a freedom fighter, who had participated in the Punnapra Vayalar freedom struggle. According to the petitioner, her husband had undergone imprisonment in Sub Jail lock up, Alappuzha for the period from November, 1946 to September, 1947 in connection with Case No. PE 7/1945/1122 ME and as such he is entitled to get the benefit of 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension' (SSS Pension).

(2.) Petitioner's husband is a recipient of State Pension with effect from 01/04/1971. Ext. P1 is the order sanctioning the State Pension. Ext. P2 is the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of pension under the SSS Pension Scheme. Ext. P3 is the coprisoner certificate issued by Sri. P. A. Solomon, Ex - MP. Ext. P4 is the NARC issued by the Jail Authorities. Petitioner has approached this Court twice for reliefs. Ultimately, the Central Government passed Ext. P8 order sanctioning the pension under the said scheme. Ext. P8 is the order dated 3rd February, 2005. But subsequently, the Central Government reconsidered the grant of pension to the petitioner and issued Ext. P9 order dated 27/12/2006 suspending Ext. P8 order pending final decision of the case. The reasons for passing Ext. P9 order are (1) that the applicant has not furnished a valid Non Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) from the State Government containing all ingredients prescribed therefor and (2) that the NARC issued by the Superintendent, Sub Jail, Alappuzha and copy of arrest warrant issued by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha, are not NARCs as these do not have all the ingredients prescribed as per the requirements under Rules and have not been furnished by the competent authority, i.e. the State Government.

(3.) cl.9 of the Scheme stipulates the production of NARC from one of the 3 authorities namely, Jail Authorities, District Magistrates or the State Government. The insistence of NARC from the State Government in paragraph 5 of Ext. P9 order cannot stand, in view of the provisions of the Scheme. When the three authorities are conferred with power to issue certificates, the Central Government has no authority to insist that the applicant should produce a certificate from the State Government. It is the duty of the NAR Certifier certifying Non Availability of Records. Before issuing such certificate the authority should ensure that the records are not available in any office maintained by the State Government in connection with the detention of the applicant. The details regarding the detention of the applicant are usually maintained in the offices of jail, District Collector, Superintendent of police, State Government etc. The duty of one of the authorities is to issue certificate after ensuring that no records are available in respect of the details regarding the detention of the applicant. The 2nd reason stated in Ext. P9 is that the detention particulars issued by the Superintendent, Sub Jail, Alleppey and copy of arrest warrant issued by the Court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha are not NARCs, as they do not have all the ingredients prescribed as per the requirement under the Rules and have not been furnished by the competent authority; i.e. the State Government. As already stated, NARC is a certificate issued by one of the three authorities mentioned in cl.9(a) of the Scheme. The Central Government is bound to accept such certificate issued by one of the authorities mentioned in cl.9(a).