Kunjupennu Narayani vs The Union of India and The Principal Secretary To Government

Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India and Mr. Davis, learned Senior Government Pleader for the State Government. The appellant herein claims to be the wife of late K. Raghavan who passed away in the year 1972. It is not in dispute that this appellant is already taking the benefit of State Freedom Fighters'' Pension as wife of late K. Raghavan. She approached for pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short SSSP Scheme) contending that her husband participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar movement and was imprisoned during the period between 10.11.1946 and 30.06.1947. In the first instance her application was rejected, as there was no certainty with regard to the conviction of her husband pertaining to PE No. 7/1946 on the file of Alappuzha Special First Class Magistrate''s Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached this Court and this Court by virtue of judgment at Ext. P9 directed the authorities concerned within a period of two months to reconsider the application on its merits. Therefore, the matter came up again for consideration before the sanctioning authority which resulted in Ext. P10 dated 10.06.2009. By virtue of Ext. P9, the appellant was intimated that her claim for grant of dependant family pension under the SSSP Scheme cannot be granted to her. Ext. P10 in detail reads as under:

I am directed to refer to the Court order dated 23.07.2008 on the above mentioned subject and say that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the Government of Kerala has furnished its report vide letter No. 23676/FFP A2/2008/GAD dated 04.04.2009.

The Government of Kerala, in its report has interalia mentioned as follows:

On verification of the disposal, it is seen that late Shri. K. Raghavan was a bigamist. The two widows Smt. Kunju Pennu narayani had applied for Kerala Freedom Fighters'' Pension. In the application made by Smt. Kochuparu, the applicant had claimed that her husband participated in the Punnapra Vayalar Struggle which took place in October 1946, was arrested and imprisoned for 7 months. The Tahsildar, Sherthalai recommended the same subject to eligibility and proof of imprisonment. Smt. Kunjupennu Narayani the Petitioner in the W.P. in her application for Kerala Freedom Fighters'' Pension claimed that her husband participated in the Punnapra Vayalar Struggle and had undergone imprisonment for one year. In the Co-prisoner Certificate issued by Sri. P.A. Solomon, Ex. M.P., it is stated that Sri. Raghavan was tried by the Special Magistrate at Alleppey in case No. PE 7/1946 and was locked up in sub jail, Alleppey for the period from 10.11.1946 to 30.06.947. The period of imprisonment underwent by the freedom fighter as noted by the Tahsildar, Cherthala in the enquiry reports issued by him to the two widows are different. He had recommended the applications of both the widows subject to eligibility. But as per the marriage certificate issued by the S.N.D.P. Union, Sherthalai Shri. Raghavan had married Smt. Kochuparu (his first wife) on 06.06.1122, i.e., 19.01.1947 which contradicts the claim made by the petitioner Smt. Kunjupennu Narayani regarding the imprisonment period of her late husband.

In the above circumstances, the suffering underwent by late K. Raghavan as claimed by the petitioner seems to be not true and as such the petitioner''s claim is not found recommended for Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension.

In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria and evidentiary requirements of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

It is, therefore, regretted that it is not possible to accept her claim for grant of dependent family pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. Hence the same is, hereby, rejected. The petitioner may be informed of the decision accordingly..

This issues with the approval of the competent authority.

As a matter of fact, State did not recommend the case of the appellant for dependant family pension under the SSSP Scheme on account of certain revelations came to the notice of the State Government. From the contents of Ext. P10 it is pertinent to note that another application of ''Smt. Kochuparu'', claiming to be the wife of late K. Raghavan, was also pending consideration and the same revealed that Tahsildar gave a report that Smt. Kochuparu had married Mr. Raghavan on 19.01.1947. If this date is taken into consideration, a doubt would arise whether Mr. Raghavan was imprisoned between 10.11.1946 and 30.06.1947 including 19.01.1947, the date on which Sri. Raghavan alleged to have married Smt. Kochuparu. However, it is noticed that Smt. Kochuparu has claimed that her husband participated in Punnapra - Vayalar movement which took place in 1946 and was imprisoned for ''7 months''.

So far as the present appellant, at the time of seeking State Freedom Fighters'' Pension she claimed that her husband was imprisoned for ''one year'' and by the time she applied for pension under SSSP Scheme, the period of imprisonment was reduced to 7 months. The fact remains, one can seek pension provided he has undergone either imprisonment or underground suffering for a period of six months. The fact remains, as on the date of considering the present application by the State Government and also by the Central Government; the documents and materials produced before the authorities concerned, gave two contradictory statements so far as the period of imprisonment which ultimately generated a doubt whether on 19.01.1947 Mr. Raghavan was really suffering imprisonment as he said to have married Smt. Kochuparu on that day.

The learned counsel for the appellant, who was not able to convince the learned Single Judge in the writ petition to allow the writ petition contends for the first time the claim of Smt. Kochuparu is brought to the notice of the applicant, by virtue of Ext. P10, therefore before rejecting the claim of the appellant, the authorities ought to have heard the appellant so as to give an opportunity to the appellant to prove her stand and disprove the stand of Smt. Kochuparu. Apparently, the appellant is the one who is drawing State Pension and it is not the case of State Government that Smt. Kochuparu is also a recipient of State Pension. In that view of the matter, why there was no claim all these years by Smt. Kochuparu is also a big question before us. Therefore, in order to give an opportunity to the appellant herein, we set aside Ext. P10 and further direct the State machinery to hear the appellant and then forward verification-cum-entitlement report along with NARC to the Union of India so as to consider the application of the appellant afresh on merits. The appellant is at liberty to give further representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The State machinery is expected to issue the above report within six weeks thereafter. From the date of receipt of verification report from the State authority, the sanctioning authority (Central Government) would decide the matter in the next six weeks.

The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.