AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—The first Respondent in W.P. (C) No. 12538 of 2010 is the Appellant.
The first Respondent herein approached this Court challenging Exhibit P12 order passed by the Appellant rejecting her application for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The application was filed on the basis that her husband, Sri. Velu Madhavan was a freedom fighter on account of his participation in the Punnapra Vayalar Freedom Movement. Earlier his claim was rejected, and thereupon he approached this Court by filing W.P. (C). No. 25817 of 2006. That Writ Petition was disposed of by Exhibit P11 judgment, directing that the matter shall be considered afresh. It was accordingly that the claim was reconsidered and as per Exhibit P12, his claim was rejected once again.
A reading of Exhibit P12 order shows that the main reason for rejection of the claim of the deceased husband of the first Respondent was that he did not undergo imprisonment for the minimum prescribed period of six months.
A reading of the judgment under appeal shows that when the case was heard, the relevant files from the collectorate, Alappuzha were produced by the learned Government Pleader. It contained the extract from the convict register of the Central Prison, Trivandrum. The learned Judge made extensive reference to the records in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the judgment. Finally, the learned Judge, in paragraph 9 of the judgment, came to the following conclusion:
Evidently, the date of sentence is 9th Dhanu, 1124 (corresponding to 9.5.1124) and the release was on 8.11.1124. Hence, the six months period is satisfied. The period cannot be calculated from 12.6.1124, viz., the date of admission since it can be evidently seen that the release was not a premature one. It is recorded in column 23 of the convict register that his release was on expiry of sentence. In that view of the matter, it can be safely concluded that the late freedom fighter was released only after the expiry of sentence of six months. The sentence was for a period of six months as evident from column 16. Hence, it is evident that he was in custody prior to the date of admission into jail.
After finding that the minimum prescribed period of imprisonment has been satisfied, the learned Judge referred to Exhibit P3 report of the Tahsildar and Exhibit P11 judgment, which contained the finding that the husband of the first Respondent was a participant in the Punnapra Vayalar Freedom Struggle. Based on the above, the Appellant was directed to sanction pension and grant the benefits within a period of two months from the date of the judgment.
On the materials available, we do not find any reason to take a view different from what has been taken by the learned Judge. For these reasons, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The Writ Appeal is, accordingly dismissed.