K.V. Velukkutty vs Union of India and State of Kerala

Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to quash Ext. P15; rejecting the sanction of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (for short ''SSS Pension''). According to the appellant, he participated in the ''General Freedom struggle'' before independence and therefore he is entitled for SSS Pension. According to him, his claim is substantiated by the fact that he is already drawing State Pension as a freedom fighter and therefore there was no justification for not recommending his claim for Central pension by the State Government and later his application was rejected by the Central Government. He also relies upon the observations of this Court in Ext. P13 to contend that he was eligible for recommendation by the State Government and therefore he seeks to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge by granting reliefs claimed in the writ petition.

We have gone through Ext. P13 so also Ext. P15 the rejection letter which was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge and the observations of the learned Single Judge in the judgment which is impugned before us. It is well settled that in order to get pension under SSS Pension Scheme, the State Government has to issue verification & entitlement to pension report, only after being satisfied that the other conditions are complied with by the applicant.

There are two modes of substantiating the claim, i.e., primary evidence and secondary evidence. Whenever primary evidence is brought on record, there cannot be much hesitation in so far as considering the application. We come across the difficulty only when secondary evidence is relied upon as already stated by us in Ext. P13 whenever the application is based on secondary evidence, there has to be a ''Non Availability Record Certificate'', which is known as ''NARC'', based on the information furnished by the applicant. This has to be issued by the State machinery which is meant for the said purpose while forwarding the application of the applicant for SSS Pension. Therefore, whenever it is a case of secondary evidence, while forwarding the application either in a positive manner or negative manner, necessarily there has to be a NARC and also ''verification & entitlement to pension report'' whenever there is a recommendation to sanction pension. If these documents are not furnished or the conditions laid down in the Scheme are not complied with, one cannot blame the sanctioning authority at the centre rejecting the application.

It is needless to say that, even if State Government recommends sanction of pension, if sanctioning authority finds deficits in the compliance of the conditions laid down for sanctioning of SSS Pension, it can always reject the application. Therefore, recommendation favouring sanction or not recommending the case of the applicant will not decide or support the decision of the sanctioning authority at the centre. In other words, even if it is not recommended by the State machinery, the sanctioning authority at the centre can always sanction the pension, provided, the conditions for such sanction are complied with. Even if State machinery recommends, still sanctioning authority can reject the same, if the conditions for sanctioning SSS Pension are not complied with. This is well settled in series of judgments of this Court and also the Apex Court.

Then coming to the case of the present appellant, in the light of the observations of Ext. P13, the learned Single Judge was justified in saying that as per the Scheme, eligibility has to be decided. Deciding eligibility would mean compliance of the conditions laid down in the Scheme for sanctioning of SSS Pension. Therefore, unless there is such consideration by the State Government, i.e., issuance of NARC, the sanctioning authority at the centre will not have sufficient material to proceed with the application and it cannot consider the application favourably sanctioning the pension. Therefore, unless there are documents in support of the claim of the applicant, one cannot consider the application either to issue NARC or to give verification & entitlement to pension report. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition. However, if the appellant is able to comply with the deficits found by the State machinery with regard to NARC, it is always open to him again to make a representation along with necessary materials, if available, so as to consider his case by the State machinery. With these observations, we allow of the writ appeal setting aside judgment of learned Single Judge and reserving liberty to the appellant to give a representation to the State machinery along with materials, if available, explaining the deficits found by the State machinery and the State machinery shall take into consideration such representation along with the material and the application already pending with them along with the documents for fresh consideration and do the needful in the light of the observations of this Court in the judgment dated 13.02.2012 in W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and connected cases. So far as the time frame indicated in the above judgment, it shall be applicable to the present case as well.