IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Siri Jagan W.P. (C). No. 295 of 2009 Decided On: 20.06.2011 Head Note:- Freedom Fighters Pension - Both the Central Government and the State treat the freedom fighters as beggars who queue up for crumbs doled out by the State. That is because they do not have any patriotism and self respect in themselves. This kind of attitude of the officers dealing with such applications is highly condemnable. For Petitioner:
For Respondents:
J U D G M E N T S. Siri Jagan, J. 1. The Petitioner claims to be the widow of a freedom fighter, viz. N. Kumaran. According to the Petitioner, her husband had actively participated in the Punnapra Vayalar movement during the freedom struggle, which is accepted by the Government as a part of the freedom movement. The Petitioner's husband submitted an application for freedom fighter's pension producing the personal knowledge certificates (PKC) issued by M/s. Kunjan Sukumaran and P.K. Chandranandan, along with a non availability of records certificate (NARC) issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha, where, according to him, the criminal case pursuant to which he had undergone sufferings was registered. That claim was earlier rejected. The Petitioner's husband approached this Court by filing W.P. (C). No. 16911/2004, in which, this Court passed Ext.P5 judgment directing the State Government to forward their recommendation on the application of the Petitioner's husband for freedom fighter's pension and a further direction to the Central Government to pass orders on the application for freedom fighter's pension. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner's husband died. Pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, Ext.P7 order has been passed relying on a recommendation dated 01.02.2007, which was 10 months' prior to Ext.P5 rejecting the application, mainly on two grounds, which read thus; (ii) He has not furnished a valid Non- Availability of Record Certificate (NARC) from the State Government (i.e., the competent authority) containing all the ingredients prescribed therefor (as indicated in para 4 above). The copy of the rejection of his request of records from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha, does not constitute an acceptable and valid NARC, as it does not contain all the ingredients prescribed therefor. (iii) In the absence of a valid NARC, the secondary evidence i.e., Personal Knowledge Certificates (PKCs) cannot be considered and are not acceptable. The Personal Knowledge Certificate from S/Shri Kunjan Sukumaran and P.K. Chandranandan, have, however, been scrutinized. In the abscondance certificate, the certifier Shri Kunjan Sukumaran has not mentioned the case number in which the Petitioner was involved and the certificate issued by Shri P.K. Chandranandan, Ex-MLA, is not in the prescribed form. Hence both the certificates are not acceptable. Moreover, the applicant has not claimed any involvement in Punnapra Vayalar Struggle. Therefore these certificates are not acceptable (as indicated in para 4 above). It was also held therein that the State Government also has not recommended the claim of the Petitioner's husband. The Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
2. The Respondents have file counter affidavits supporting the impugned orders. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As far as non acceptance of non-availability of records certificate is concerned, I have, in more than one judgment, severely criticized the attitude of the Central Government in the matter. The freedom fighters cannot go around Government offices ascertaining whether any records relating to their cases are available in that office. They can only approach the court where the case, in which, they were involved, was charged and obtain a certificate from that court as to non-availability of the records. That has been done by the Petitioner's husband. If a certificate of the kind referred to in Ext.P7 is necessary, it is for the State Government to ascertain from their offices whether records relating to the case, in which, the Petitioner's husband was involved, are available or not and issue a certificate as required by the Central Government. I am of opinion that once the freedom fighter has produced a certificate from the concerned court that the records of the case are not available in that court, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement and that certificate would be a valid NARC. Therefore, the first reason stated in Ext.P7 is totally unsustainable. 5. As far as the second reason is concerned, the Petitioner herself now relies on Ext.P9 personal knowledge certificate issued by one T.F. Yohannan, which is dated 12.7.2008. That personal knowledge certificate was obtained subsequent to Ext.P7 order. Therefore, the Respondents had No. occasion to consider that certificate. The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 review application before the 2nd Respondent, producing Ext.P9. In the above circumstances, it is only appropriate that the 2nd Respondent considers the acceptability of Ext.P9 personal knowledge certificate and forwards an appropriate recommendation to the 1st Respondent in respect of the claim of the Petitioner for freedom fighter's pension. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereupon, the 1st Respondent shall reconsider the issue without reference to Ext.P7 in accordance with the findings regarding the NARC in this judgment and pass fresh orders within another month from the date of receipt of the recommendation from the 2nd Respondent. 6. Before parting with this case, I may refer to the order dated 24.3.2011 passed by me, which reads thus: This Writ Petition was preceded by another Writ Petition namely W.P. (C) No. 16911/2004. Ext.P5 is the judgment in that writ petition. That was rendered on 04.01.2008. In that, in paragraph 2 it has been specifically stated that the Central Government has filed a counter affidavit stating that the State Government is yet to forward the verification-cum-entitlement report recommending the case of the Petitioner for pension. Therefore this Court directed the State Government to forward the verification-cum-entitlement report showing their recommendation to the 1st Respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. Ext.P7 is stated to be the order passed pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment. In Ext.P7 order they have relied on letter from the State Government dated 1.2.2007 containing their recommendations regarding the claim of the Petitioner. That recommendation is 11 months prior to Ext.P5 judgment. If that be so, they must have received the said recommendation prior to the hearing of W.P.(C) No. 16911/2004. In that case, the averment of the Central Government in their counter affidavit that the State Government is yet to forward verification-cum- entitlement report must be false. Further, the State Government also at that time did not report to this Court that they had forwarded their recommendation to the Central Government. Therefore the State Government also withheld information from this Court insofar as their recommendation referred to in Ext.P7 is dated 1.2.2007. Still further Ext.P7 does not show that as directed in Ext.P5 judgment a recommendation has been forwarded after and in accordance with that judgment. In the above circumstances, the Central Government and the State Government shall explain their conduct in the matter. If they do not sufficiently explain it, this Court may be forced to take appropriate proceedings against them including for misleading this Court. Accordingly the Respondents are directed to file affidavits explaining their conduct. Post immediately after vacation. 7. To explain this discrepancy, the 1st Respondent has filed an additional affidavit, wherein he takes the stand that the recommendation of the State Government, though dated 1.2.2007, was received by the 1st Respondent under the cover of Annexure R-IV letter dated 8.2.2008, which was subsequent to Ext.P5 judgment. But No. such averment is available in the first counter affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent. The State Government has not chosen to file any affidavit whatsoever explaining the discrepancy in answer to my order dated 24.3.2011. I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the way both the State Government and the Central Government approach applications for freedom fighter's pension. Whether they are entitled to pension or not, I am of opinion that they are entitled to be treated with respect, which, I find that both the Central Government and the State do not do. Perhaps, as I have criticized in earlier judgments, this is because of lack of patriotism on the part of the persons who deal with such applications. They treat the freedom fighters as beggars who queue up for crumbs doled out by the State. That is because they do not have any patriotism and self respect in themselves. This kind of attitude of the officers dealing with such applications is highly condemnable. I remind the Respondents to reconsider the claim of the Petitioner with the above in mind. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. |
