Manjula Chellur, J.

1. When the Writ Appeals were taken up for consideration, all the writ petitions were clubbed together, as similar question of controversy is involved in the issuance of valid 'Non Availability of Records Certificate' (for short 'NARC') while considering application for pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (for short Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme), 1980, issued by different authorities other than State Government.

W.A. Nos. 227, 338 of 2011 & W.A. No. 382 of 2010:

2. The above three appeals are filed by the Union of India aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing sanction of pension to writ petitioner concerned.

W.A. No. 338 of 2011:

3. This appeal pertains to Punnapra-Vayalar movement. The applicant/petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter having undergone suffering of imprisonment between 11.10.1122(M.E.) and 13.02.1123 (May 1947 to December 1947). The document produced by the applicant is an endorsement from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court(CJM), Alappuzha with regard to the NARC pertaining to PE No.8/1122. In this case the applicant had produced 'Personal Knowledge Certificate' (for short 'PKC') and also 'Co-Prisoner's Certificate' (for short 'Civil Procedure Code'). According to the appellant, as the claim of the applicant is on both the counts, that he was put to imprisonment and also suffered underground, the very claim for pension as a freedom fighter under the Punnapra-Vayalar freedom struggle cannot be entertained. Alternatively they challenge the endorsement by the CJM, Alappuzha as it cannot be considered as NARC as contemplated under the various Circulars of the Union of India issued from time to time subsequent to 1980.

4. Then coming to the Civil Procedure Code, the argument is, the contents of the certificate cannot be looked into for the reason co-prisoner definitely cannot remember details so accurately after lapse of decades, when the said certificates came to be issued. In this case the State Government did not recommend the case of the applicant and the Central Government rejected the claim on the ground of existence of no proper NARC as contemplated under the scheme and so also PKC and Civil Procedure Code are unacceptable. However, when the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge held, the Certificate issued by JFMC indicating non availability of records in respect of PE No.8/1122 M.E. is a proper NARC and proceeded to hold that reasoning given at Ext.P8 is not a valid reason, therefore, Ext.P8 was quashed with a direction to pay pension to the petitioners under the scheme and also with a direction to pay the arrears with effect from 27.08.1998 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeal is filed.

5. During the course of submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents/wit petitioners submitted, subsequent to the disposal of the matter before the learned Single Judge all the arrears came to be paid and he has produced the intimation letter. As against this, the learned counsel for the Union of India, Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy contends that as there was no stay against the order of the learned Single Judge, arrears of pension was paid in view of the Contempt Case initiated in COC No.1330 of 2010 and further it was without prejudice to the right of the appellant.

W.A. No. 382 of 2010:

6. In this appeal, the widow of late freedom fighter by name one Pouleenju Achappan approached the learned Single Judge aggrieved by the rejection of pension already granted by the Central Government on the ground that there was no proper NARC. According to her, the State Government though had not recommended her case, the Central Government initially had sanctioned the pension but later suspended the said order on the ground that there was no proper NARC and she had sought for quashing of communication at Ext.P9. The learned Judge placing reliance on the