Back
2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12211
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
BHASKARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA. – Respondent
WP(C)/1180/2006
SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
Personal knowledge certificates can serve as adequate proof for pension eligibility under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme in lieu of official records.
Headnote:
Pension - Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme - Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme - The court held that personal knowledge certificates can substitute for official records, reaffirming the need to honor the sacrifices of freedom fighters despite administrative hurdles.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the rejection of his pension application under the Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, arguing that he was a participant in the freedom struggle but lacked official records due to their unavailability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of pension based on the absence of official records and delayed application was unjustified, emphasizing the need to consider personal knowledge certificates as sufficient evidence.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the pension application based on lack of official documentation is valid in the context of the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the absence of formal records should not bar claims under the pension scheme, recognizing personal knowledge certificates as sufficient evidence for eligibility.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to reconsider the application on its merits.
J U D G M E N T
This writ petitioner is filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 by which the application of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme was rejected. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was an active participant of the Punnapra Vayalar Struggle and he was arrayed as an accused before the Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha in Case No.P.E.7/1122(M.E.) and the court issued a non-bailable warrant against him. In order to evade arrest the petitioner went underground for more than six months from October, 1946 to May, 1947. As a result of which the court declared the petitioner as a proclaimed offender.
2. The application was initially rejected as per Ext.P2.
Therein the grounds for rejection were that the certificate issued by Sri.Kunjan Sukumarn and Sri.S.Damodaran are not in proper form and that evidence based on official records have not been produced.
WP(C).No.1180 OF 2006-M. 2 Thereafter, the petitioner produced Ext.P3 which is a personal knowledge certificate issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani in the proper form. Ext.P4 is the proceedings of the District Collector granting pension to Sri.H.K.Chakrapani, the certifier. The certifier is the recipient of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension under the Central Government which is evidenced by Ext.P5. Ext.P6 is the true extract of the convict register of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram relating to the certifier Sri.H.K.Chakrapani. But by Ext.P7 again on similar grounds that no official records have been produced, the application was rejected.
3. The petitioner submits that he has produced Ext.P1 non-
availability of record certificate issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha wherein an application for copy of the jail records in Case No.P.E.7/122 was rejected as records are not available. In the light of Ext.P1 and the personal knowledge certificate issued by Sri.H.K.Chakrapani Ext.P3, the learned counsel submits that the Government should have considered the matter on merits. It is also pointed out that as per the scheme the said documents would be sufficient in the absence of original records from the court. The WP(C).No.1180 OF 2006-M. 3 petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in WP(C). No.33452/2006 wherein also on similar circumstances this Court directed to reconsider the matter.
4. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit in this case.
In para.6 it is stated that as per the Government Circular No.57183/FFP B1/93/GAD dated 31.12.1993 it was informed that the application received after 31.3.1994 will be considered only on the production of documentary evidence from official records such as warrant of arrest, court records, jail records clearly showing the applicant's sufferings in connection with the freedom struggle. The question is whether the said reasoning adopted by the respondents is correct in the light of the well accepted principles.
5. Going by the scheme, in the absence of the official records the petitioner is entitled to produce the personal knowledge certificate from a prominent freedom fighter along with the non-availability of record certificate which is sufficient for consideration of application. The circular dated 31.12.1993 cannot defeat the right of the petitioner for grant of pension if he is eligible under the scheme.
6. A similar question was considered by the Apex Court in the WP(C).No.1180 OF 2006-M. 4 decisions reported in R.Narayanan v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 746) and in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 2127). In R.Narayanan v. Union of India ( AIR 1990 SC 746 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that after a long number of years a freedom fighter cannot be compelled to produce official records for consideration of an application for pension. As regards reliance placed on the cut of date provided in the Circular, the said stand also cannot be justified as legal or genuine in view of the decision of the Apex Court. In Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of I
