AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The challenge is against Ext.P4 order by which the Central Government rejected the grant of pension under the SSS Pension Scheme. The order Ext.P4 shows that the reason for the rejection is that the petitioner has not furnished any primary evidence to substantiate his claim of jail suffering.
The petitioner''s case is that he was a participant of the Punnapra- Vayalar struggle. He was arrested by the Police and was tried in First Class Magistrate Court, Cherthala in C.C. No. 17/1949. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year u/s 9(5) read with Section 9(1) of Ordinance V of 1123 M.E. and hence lodged in Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram from 16.1.1950 to 16.9.1950. Ext.P3 is the true copy of the certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram.
The only question is whether primary evidence is present here and the reasons stated by the Central Government are correct. The petitioner''s case is that the stand taken by the Central Government cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that with regard to two other freedom fighters who were accused in respect of the very same case, viz. C.C. No. 17/1949 along with him, the Central Government has granted pension based on the judgments of this Court, copies of which have been produced as Exts.P7 and P8.
The certificate relied upon by the petitioner is Ext.P3. It shows that the petitioner was admitted in the prison on 16.1.1950 as convict No. 1282. The case number is C.C. No. 17/1949. He was sentenced to one year imprisonment. All the essential details are contained in Ext.P3 certificate. Going by the Scheme, primary evidence should be in the form of imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned jail authority, District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release. The certificate herein contains all the essential details which have been verified by the State Government and accordingly the State Government recommended his claim. The recommendation made by the State Government is evident from para 12 of the counter affidavit. The said recommendation was made pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 31333/2008. The crucial paragraph about the recommendation as detailed in the counter affidavit of the first respondent, is extracted below:
The application and supporting documents put forth by the applicant for KFFP have been examined in detail by the State Government. Shri Kochu Kutty Raghavan convict No. 1279 and 1st accused in CC 17/1949 was granted KFFP and Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension vide letter No. 52/CC/K/131/2006-FF (SZ) dated 27.11.2007. Shri K. Vavachan is convict No. 1282 in CC No. 17/1949 and has suffered imprisonment from 16.01.1950 to 16.09.1950. In the circumstances and on the basis of the judgment dated 29.07.2008 in WP(C) No. 26675/2008 it is found that his claim is genuine and is hence eligible for KFFP.
In the light of the above findings the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension application in respect of Sri K. Vavachan is duly recommended and forwarded to the Government of India for further action at that end.
It shows that the State Government considered his case for recommendation in the light of the fact that Shri Kochu Kutty Raghavan, convict No. 1279 and 1st accused in CC 17/1949 was granted the Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension as well as SSS pension. It was also reported that the petitioner, convict No. 1282 in C.C. No. 17/1949 and had also suffered imprisonment from 16.1.1950 to 16.9.1950. Accordingly, it was recommended that the claim of the petitioner is genuine.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the true copy of the convict register in respect of Shri Kochu Kutty Raghavan who is convict No. 1279, whereas the petitioner is convict No. 1282. Ext.P5 shows that Shri Raghavan was admitted to jail on 16.1.1950 and the case number is CC 17/125 ME (corresponding to 1949). He was also released on 16.9.1950. Ext.P7 is the copy of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 32076/2006, relating to Shri Raghavan. As per the said judgment, this Court declared that the petitioner therein is entitled for grant of pension under the SSS Pension Scheme and accordingly the Central Government was directed to sanction pension and it is submitted that he was granted pension already. A copy of the order granting pension, has been produced as Ext.P9. Therefore, it is evident that both the petitioner herein and Shri Raghavan who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 32076/2006 have been convicted and sentenced in C.C. No. 17/1949 and their imprisonment was for similar period. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the case in which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, viz. C.C. No. 17/1949 being the same, he was convicted in connection with the Punnapra - Vayalar struggle itself and there cannot be any iota of doubt regarding that. Therefore, the view taken by the Central Government in Ext.P4 that the recommendation is not sufficient to grant pension, cannot be sustained.
Apart from the above, learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Ext.P8 judgment relating to Shri Vava Rajappan who is convict No. 1280 in the very same case, viz. C.C. 17/1949. Therein also this Court after considering various aspects, directed the State Government to forward a verification-cum-entitlement report to the Central Government recommending the case of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the said person has also obtained SSS pension subsequently.
Therefore, it is evident from the pleadings that convict Nos. 1279 and 1280 in the very same case, viz. CC 17/1949 have been granted pension by the Central Government. They have been granted pension after finding that they had undergone jail suffering in relation to Punnapra - Vayalar struggle. The petitioner being convict No. 1282 in the very same case, there cannot be any dispute that he was convicted and sentenced and lodged in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram and the details which are available in Ext.P3 as recommended by the State Government ought to have been accepted by the Central Government.
In the light of the above, Ext.P4 order rejecting grant of pension, cannot be sustained. There is no iota of doubt as regards the eligibility of the petitioner for grant of pension. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is quashed. There will be a direction to the Central Government to sanction pension to the petitioner in accordance with the Scheme. The same shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claim for arrears from the date of receipt of the application, shall also be considered while sanctioning pension. No costs.