Bharathi vs Union of India (UOI) and State of Kerala

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The Petitioner challenges Exhibit P7 order passed by the Government of India rejecting the application for sanction of Swantrata Sainik Samman(SSS)Pension.

The Petitioner''s case is that her late husband Shri Sekharan was an active participant in the Punnapra-Vayalar Struggle. Police arrayed him as an accused in Case No. P.E.7/1122ME before the Special Magistrate, Alappuzha and accordingly, he was arrested and lodged in the Sub Jail, Alappuzha from 30.3.1947 to 20.10.1947. The State Government has already granted pension to the Petitioner''s late husband under the Freedom Fighter''s Pension Scheme as evidenced by Exhibit P1.

The Petitioner relies upon Exhibit P2, the Co-prisoners Certificate issued by Shri P.A. Solomon, Ex-M.P. In Exhibit P2 what is stated is that late Shri Sekharan was lodged in the same jail along with him during the period from 30.3.1947 to 20.10.1947. Other documents were also produced by the Petitioner. Earlier, the application was rejected by Exhibit P5 and this Court in the judgment in Exhibit P6 again directed the State Government to consider the matter and accordingly the State Government forwarded a fresh verification-cum-entitlement report.

The rejection as per Exhibit P7 is for the reason that there are discrepancies with regard to the period of suffering claimed in the application and as certified by the certifier Shri P.A. Solomon. The above details are available in the verification report also, which is extracted in Exhibit P7. In the verification report forwarded, it is mentioned that the period of detention shown in the application is eight months from 11.11.1946 to 21.6.1947 in Case No. PE.7/1122ME. The 1st certificate issued by Shri Solomon is dated 17.4.1974. Another certificate issued by him was also produced, which is dated 15.6.2006. There also the period shown is from 30.3.1947 to 20.10.1947. Therefore, obviously, the periods do not tally.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the same may be a mistake and therefore the Central Government could have granted pension. But, still the Petitioner has no other document by way of primary evidence to show the period of detention, etc. If there was any other certificate by way of primary evidence, evidently, the Petitioner''s claim could have been considered by the Central Government. In the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the view taken is so unreasonable . Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed.