Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21887
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
NARAYANI KRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WA/1663/2020
SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH, SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA, SRI.TEK CHAND, SR GP FOR R2
The court emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to evidentiary requirements in pension claims, specifically the need for primary evidence over secondary certifications.
Headnote:
Pension - Freedom Fighters Pension - Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - Section regarding Imprisonment Evidence - Court held that Co-prisoner Certificates and secondary evidence alone are insufficient without the prescribed primary documentation as per the scheme's requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the rejection of her claim for a dependent pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme due to lack of primary evidence of her husband's imprisonment during the Punnapra Vayalar struggle.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, agreeing that the evidence presented did not meet the necessary criteria outlined in the pension scheme, particularly regarding imprisonment evidence.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the pension claim based on lacking primary evidence and the reliance on Co-prisoner Certificates was justified under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement of primary evidence for imprisonment was reiterated, highlighting that Co-prisoner Certificates alone do not suffice if valid supporting documentation, such as a Non-Availability of Records Certificate, is absent.
Final Decision: The writ appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2021
S. Manikumar, CJ
Instant writ appeal is filed challenging the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 29076 of 2010 dated 01.11.2018, by which, a learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition.
2. W.P. (C) No. 29076 of 2010, was filed by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging Exhibit-P8 order passed by the Union of India, Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, respondent No.1, dated 28.04.2010, whereby, her claim for freedom fighters family dependent pension, Swatantrata Sainik Samman (S.S.S.) Pension Scheme, 1980, is rejected.
3. According to the appellant, her husband was an activist, who had taken part in Punnapra Vayalar Struggle. On account of the same, he was arrayed as an accused in a criminal proceedings on the file of the Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha, and that a warrant in that case was issued to him, by the court concerned. He was arrested and kept in the Sub Jail, Alappuzha, for 11 months from December, 1946 to October, 1947.
4. Later, the appellant's husband died. At the time when her husband was alive, Punnapra Vayalar Struggle was not recognized by the Union Government, as eligible for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension under the Central Scheme.
5. Later, Punnapra Vayalar movement was also recognized as part of the National Freedom Movement, in order to be eligible for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension under the Central Scheme.
6. Thereafter, the appellant filed Exhibit-P1 application dated 11.05.1998 for grant of freedom fighter's family dependent pension under the Central Scheme. Earlier, during the life time of appellant's husband, he was awarded Freedom Fighters Pension, under the State Scheme by the Principal Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, 2nd respondent, on account of his participation in Punnapra Vayalar movement.
7. To substantiate the claim that her husband suffered imprisonment, for not less than the minimum prescribed period of six months, appellant submitted Exhibits-P3 and P4 Co-prisoner Certificates dated 03.07.1974 and 25.09.2009 respectively, issued by one former Minister in the State Government and an Ex. MLA.
8. Appellant has submitted that these evidence of incarceration of her husband were brushed aside by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, 1st respondent and thus, rejected her claim, on the grounds that the Co-prisoner Certificate submitted is unreliable and that the State Government has not recommended the grant of pension.
9. After considering the rival submissions and material on record, a learned Single Judge, dismissed W. P. (C) No. 29076 of 2020 as under:-
“7.The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Union of India v. Subhadra reported in [ 2016 (2) KLT 1 (W.A. No. 2538/2015 dated 11.6.2010), has held in paragraph 14 thereof that in order that the person who has issued with Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) under the Central Scheme to be eligible to issue such certificate, he should have suffered actual imprisonment for not less than two years without any remission etc. The said dictum laid down by this Court in the context of the requirement of eligibility to issue Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) would also apply with equal vigour in the case of eligibility to issue Co-Prisoner Certificate (CPC). It is beyond dispute that, as per the Governing norms under the Central Scheme,a certifier to issue Co-Prisoner certificate should have necessarily suffered one year's actual imprisonment without any remission, apart from the fact that he should have been awarded the freedom fighters' pension under the Central Scheme. In the light of these aspects, it is only to be held that the stand taken by the respondents regarding the unacceptability of Ext. P-4 certificate is correct, in as much as the certifier was not eligible to issue such certificate. Hence, the impugned proceedings at Ext. P8 etc, does not deserve any legal interdiction
