Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41306
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.R. Bannurmath, CJ, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J
PUNNAKKAN NARAYNAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WA/71/2010
SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR
Applicants for the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme must provide substantial evidence to support their claims to entitlement; absence of such evidence leads to dismissal.
Headnote:
Pension - Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme - Sections - The court emphasized the need for substantial evidence to support claims for pension benefits, highlighting the responsibilities of applicants to provide requisite documentation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an octogenarian, sought benefits under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, marking his sixth attempt to gain recognition and relief from the government since 1985. Past opportunities had not yielded success due to insufficient evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision, supporting the closure of the case on the basis that the appellant failed to provide adequate material to substantiate his claims despite multiple opportunities. The court prioritized the need for evidence over emotional appeals.
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to receive pension benefits under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme in the absence of sufficient evidence of his claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that repeated opportunities were afforded to the appellant to present evidence, and the lack of substantial support for his claims justified the dismissal of his petitions.
Final Decision: The writ appeal is dismissed for lack of merit.
JUDGMENT
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd October, 2009 dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioner is before this Court in the present writ appeal. 2. The appellant octogenarian is fighting for benefits under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme . The present writ petition is the 6th attempt made by him before this Court for a direction to the Government to give him freedom fighter's pension. Right from the year 1985 when he approached this Court for the first time till date the sixth time, noting the fact that the appellant has no enough material with him or produced, even though upheld the orders passed by the authorities, in order to give him opportunities, directed him to approach the authorities again and again and find out if any relief can be granted to him, and inspite of those opportunities and failing in all his attempts, may be genuine, he was not given the relief. Ultimately, in the present writ petition, the learned Single Judge deemed it proper to give a quietus and more importantly peace to the petitioner himself by closing all the considerations unnecessarily.
3. No doubt, everyone respects the freedom fighters and their struggle and sacrifice for getting India free. As even contended by the appellant himself, he is not fighting for monetary benefits, but for recognition as a freedom fighter and as such he is entitled to the relief claimed. As the learned Single Judge has rightly noted, the participation of the petitioner during the freedom struggle is well recognised by the State and it is only the latter recognition of the Union of India which is being again sought. In the absence of any acceptable material before the authorities, inspite of giving repeated opportunities to the appellant, in our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to grant relief to the appellant not for the first time and as observed earlier for the sixth time. We find that the octogenarian should now rest with a peaceful life instead of running around the court for the benefit of the Pension Scheme which is again not allowed.
We find no merit in the writ appeal and the same is dismissed.
S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns
