Kumari Magdaleth v. Union of India and State of Kerala

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 18396 of 2013** ## **PETITIONER** **KUMARI MAGDALETH,** **D/O.LATE SILVESTER ALBERT, VATTATHIL VEEDU, VADACKAL P.O., PARAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **BY ADV.SRI.K.K.SATHEESH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS' DIVISION, NEW DELHI CITY CENTRE-II BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, 'A'WING, JAISINGH ROAD, NEAR YMCA, NEW DELHI-110001.** **2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP.A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **R1 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JESTIN MATHEW** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 18396 of 2013 (Y)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES IN THE REGISTER KEPT IN THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA IN CONNECTION WITH PUNNAPRAVAYALAR STRUGGLE.** **EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THAT EXTRACT OF CONVICT REGISTER OF CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM ISSUED BY THE SUPDT. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, ALAPPUZHA DT.29-12-2000. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DT.7-10-1998. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.10-7-2006 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 33635/2004. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.52/CC/K/7/2005-FF(SZ) DT.29-11-2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.5-1-2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 1976/2008. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.9-8-2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA 1160/2011. EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO R2 DT.8-9-2012. EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.71308/FFP.A2/2012/GAD DT.12-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVT. TO THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.52/CC/K/16/2008-FF(SZ) DT.20-6-2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 52/CC/K/125/2006-FF(SZ) DATED 7.8.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS ----------------------** ## **EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE SCHEME** **/TRUE COPY/** **PA TO JUDGE** **sdr/1.8.18** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 --------------------------------Dated this the 17th day of July, 2018. ## J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is physically disabled, is the unmarried daughter of late Silvester Albert, who claims to be a freedom fighter, who had actively participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement during the freedom struggle. The Punnapra-Vayalar Movement was duly recognized by the 1st respondent-Union Government as part of the freedom struggle to be eligible for the grant of freedom fighter pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (SSSP Scheme 1980) only as per proceedings dated 20.1.1998. Long prior thereto, the petitioner's father died. During the life time of the petitioner's father, he had received freedom fighters pension under the State Scheme. The petitioner, being the unmarried daughter of the said claimant, had preferred application for the grant of freedom fighters' pension under the Central Scheme as per Ext.P-4 application dated 7.10.1998. In Ext.P-4 it was claimed that petitioner's deceased father had actually suffered imprisonment for about 7 years on account of his participation in two criminal cases, viz., firstly, S.C.No.11/1124 ME., on ::2:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha and secondly, S.C.No.5/1123 ME on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum, on account of his participation in Punnapra-Vayalar Movement. It appears that the 2nd respondent-State Government had refused to recommend the case of the petitioner merely on the ground that she had only produced unverified convict register pertaining to the alleged imprisonment suffered by the petitioner's father and also a copy of the judgment of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha in S.C.No.11/1124 ME. Further, the 2 nd respondent-State Government has also taken the stand that the petitioner had not produced any other documentary evidence such as Personal Knowledge Certificate or Co-prisoner Certificate from any prominent freedom fighters in support of her claim and certificate showing that the documents in the records from the Central Prison that pertains to S.C.No.5/1123 ME are not available, etc. In the light of these aspects, the 1st respondent-Union Government has rejected the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P-6 proceedings dated November, 2007. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed W.P.(C).No.1976/2008 before this Court. In the said writ proceedings, the petitioner has produced as Ext.P-1 therein, a copy of the judgment dated 9.12.1949 of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, in S.C.No.11/1124 ME (which arose out of ::3:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 P.E.No.5/1122 ME of the Special Magistrate Court (Alappuzha), and also a copy of the convict register, which has been produced in this Writ Petition as Ext.P-2. This Court as per Ext.P-7 judgment dated 5.1.2011 in W.P(C).No.1976/2008 has conclusively found that the factual aspects in relation to S.C.No.11/1124 ME on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, are incidents which had taken place on 31.2.1122 ME (17.10.1946), which is one week prior to the commencement of the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement which started on 7.3.1122 ME (24.10.1946). Further it was held by this Court that the entire factual allegations in that Sessions Case were pertaining to inter se clashes between the two rival trade unions of fishermen, viz., Matsya Thozhilali Union and Coastal Workers Union and that the said incidents were not in any manner directed against the autocracy of the Diwan Rule or Royal Government. Therefore, this Court held in Ext.P-7 judgment that involvement of the petitioner in S.C.No.11/1124 ME on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, cannot be said to be in any manner related to Punnapra-Vayalar Movement and accordingly dismissed the said W.P(C).No.1976/2008. Aggrieved by Ext.P-7 judgment, the petitioner has preferred W.A.No.1160/2011 before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P-8 judgment dated ::4:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 9.8.2012 in W.A.No.1160/2011 had found that the said fact findings made by the learned Single Judge in Ext.P-7 judgment that the entire incidents relatable to S.C.No.11/1124 ME on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, are only in relation to clashes and violence between the two rival groups of trade unions of fishermen and that the said findings have nothing to do with the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement is correct. Further the Division Bench had specifically taken note of the submission made by the petitioner that she has placed reliance not only on the involvement of her father in S.C.No.11/1124 ME on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, but also in relation to his involvement in S.C.No.5/1123 ME on the file of the Sessions Court, Trivandrum, though she could not produce any documents in relation to the latter case. It appears that both the above said two Sessions Cases arose out of Preliminary Enquiry Proceedings in P.E.No.5/1122 ME on the file of the Divisional First Class Magistrate's Court, Alappuzha. The first case being S.C.No.11/1124 ME on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha (referred to herein above) and the latter case S.C.No.10/1123 ME on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. Later, it appears that S.C.No.10/1123 ME on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, was transferred to the Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum, wherein it ::5:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 was registered as S.C.No.5/1123 ME. The petitioner could gather these details on the basis of Ext.P-1, which is stated to be extract of the documents kept in the Office of the District Collector, Alappuzha, in connection with the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement. It is stated in last page of Ext.P-1 that S.C.No.10/1123 ME on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha was transferred to the Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum. Ext.P-2 convict register would show that petitioner's father was admitted to the Central Prison, Trivandrum, on 27th Vrichigam, 1123 (ME) (13.12.1947) and was prematurely released from the prison consequent to remission on 26.1.1955 (13.6.1130 ME), which comprised a total period of 7 years one month and 14 days. But it appears from serial No.16 of Ext.P-2 that he was sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for life and forfeiture of his property and rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and Rs.100/- as fine or nine months' rigorous imprisonment, etc., presumably for his conviction in latter case, S.C.No.5/1123 ME. On this basis it is contended by the petitioner that, at any rate, the petitioner's father had secured actual imprisonment for a period of more than the requisite 6 months period as stipulated in the Central Scheme and hence he is eligible for pension under the Central Scheme taking into account his involvement in the latter case ::6:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 alone. The Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P-8 judgment held that it will be open to the petitioner to make a claim before the respondents and to establish her case that her father had actually suffered imprisonment for not less than the minimum period of 6 months in respect of his involvement in a criminal case other than the above referred S.C.No.11/1124 ME on the file of the Sessions Case, Alappuzha, on account of his involvement in Punnapra-Vayalar Movement. It was also directed that if such claim is available to the petitioner, she will be at liberty to approach the authorities concerned along with supporting documents and the matter should be reconsidered by the 1st respondent-Union Government. It was with these observations that Writ Appeal No.1160/2011 was disposed of as per Ext.P-8 judgment. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P-9 representation dated 8.9.2012 along with copies of Exts.P-1 & P-2 herein. The State Government issued Ext.P-10 letter dated 12.12.2012, whereby the case of the petitioner was recommended to the 1st respondent-Union Government authorities in respect of her claim under the Central Scheme. In Ext.P-10, the 2nd respondent-State Government authorities have found that Ext.P-1 herein has been verified with the case register kept in the Office of the District Collector, ::7:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 Alappuzha, regarding Punnapra-Vayalar struggle and it was found that the name of the petitioner's father had been arrayed as 2nd accused in S.C.No.5/1123 ME on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum. That the State Government had again consulted regarding the genuineness of the case, P.E.No.5/1123 ME as shown in Ext.P-1 herein and that as per letter dated 16.11.2012 of the District Collector, Alappuzha, had reported that he has conducted enquiry through Tahsildar, Ambalappuzha, wherein it was found that the clash between the two Matsya Thozhilali Union was one of the aspects which led to the Punnapra-Vayalar struggle. It is in the light of these aspects that the 2nd respondent-State Government has recommended the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P-10 letter to the 1st respondent-Union Government. Thereafter, the competent authority of the 1 st respondentUnion Government has issued Ext.P-11 proceedings dated 20.6.2013 whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. The main grounds of rejection are discernible from a reading of the concluding portion of para 5(ii), read as follows: > “In response to State Government's request Kumari Magdaleth has submitted a copy of the case register kept in the O/o District Collector, Alappuzha regarding Punnapra-Vayalar Struggle wherein the name of her father is seen as 2nd accused. This document cannot be counted as an additional document as a similar document i.e a Judgment of the Sessions Court of Alleppey has already been considered as Exhibit P1 in ::8:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 W.P(C).No.1976 of 2008 she has not furnished any fresh evidence to substantiate her claim worth reconsideration.” It is this order at Ext.P-11 that is essentially under challenge in this writ proceedings. 2. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) filed on 23.7.2013 are as follows: “i) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension” (SSS Pension) due to her late father in the light of Ext.P-10 report submitted by the 2nd respondent. ii) call for the records leading to the issue of Exhibit-P11 and quash its original by issuance of a writ of certiorari; iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, compelling the respondent to grant the benefit of SSS Pension to the petitioner with the actual arrears due to her within a stipulated time. iv) Issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.” 3. Heard Sri.K.K.Sathish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.N.Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the 1st respondent-Union of India and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for R-2 State. 4. After hearing both sides in extenso, this Court is of the view that the matter requires a remit for reconsideration at the hands of the competent authority of the 2nd respondent-State Government and consequently by the competent authority of the 1st respondent-Union Government, in view of the aspects stated herein below. The petitioner's ::9:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 counsel has made available a copy of the judgment dated 9.12.1949 rendered by the Sessions Court, Alappuzha in S.C.No.11/1124 ME for a perusal of this Court. It is relevant in this context to note that a copy of the judgment dated 9.12.1949 in S.C.No.11/1124 ME was earlier produced by the petitioner as Ext.P-1 in Ext.P-7 W.P.(C).No.1976/2008 which led to Ext.P-7 & P-8 judgments. A reading of the said judgment as well as the documents produced in this case as Exts.P-1, P2, etc., would disclose the following factual aspects: The factual events in relation to S.C.No.11/1124 ME on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, are in relation to events which have taken place on 31.2.1123 (17.10.1946). It is common ground that tumultuous events in respect of the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement had commenced from 7.3.1122 (24.10.1946). Therefore, the factual events in relation to S.C.No.11/1124 ME on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha are in relation to events that had occurred one week prior to the tumultuous events in relation to Punnapra-Vayalar Movement. The learned Single Judge of this Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court have conclusively found in Exts.P-7 & P-8 from the details given in the said judgment of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha in S.C.No.11/1124 ME that events in that case are only in relation to the ::10:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 violent clashes between the two rival trade unions of fishermen and those events have nothing to do with the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement. But, a scanning of the above documents would show that both the two cases emanate from the Preliminary Enquiry proceedings as per P.E.No.5/1122 ME on the file of the Divisional First Class Magistrate's Court, Alappuzha. Ext.P-1 register, which is said to be maintained by the District Collector, Alappuzha, on which petitioner places reliance, would show that the latter case S.C.No.10/1123 ME on the files of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, had also emanated from the very same preliminary enquiry proceedings as per P.E.No.5/1122 ME on the file of the above said Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. A further reading of the last page of Ext.P-1 would show that the said latter Sessions Case was thereafter transferred to the Temporary Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum. The petitioner would place reliance on Ext.P-2 convict register to state that it is this case, which was transferred from the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, to the Sessions Court, Trivandrum, which was later numbered as S.C.No.5/1123 ME on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum. Therefore, even going by the case of the petitioner, both the Sessions Case, i.e., S.C.No.11/1124 ME on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha and S.C.No.5/1123 ME on the file of the ::11:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum, have emanated from the very same preliminary enquiry proceedings, i.e., P.E.No.5/1122 ME on the file of the Divisional Magistrate's Court, Alappuzha. Apart from these aspects, no other materials have been produced to show that the nature of allegations and the charges, which were the subject matter of S.C.No.5/1123 ME on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum. Moreover, the names of the accused persons in the latter case as shown in Ext.P-1 are the same as that of the accused persons in the judgment in the former case. Sri.N.Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General, instructed by Sri.R.Suvin Menon, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the 1st respondent-Union Government authorities, would point out to this Court that since both the Sessions Cases have emanated from the same preliminary enquiry proceedings, it is only to be inferred that the factual events in respect of both the Sessions Cases are in relation to events which had taken place around the same period, i.e., one week prior to the commencement of the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement, inasmuch as the former case is indisputably connected to a case which took place one week prior to the commencement of Punnapra-Vayalar Movement. That prima facie, therefore, unless the petitioner can produce cogent materials like ::12:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 authenticated copy of the judgment in the latter case, viz, S.C.No.5/1123 ME, it is only to be held that the matter in the latter case are only in relation to the events which had taken place one week prior to the commencement of Punnapra-Vayalar Movement as both the cases have emanated from the same preliminary enquiry proceedings. Further, it could also be inferred that the entire factual events which emanated in P.E.No.5/1122 on the file of the Divisional First Class Magistrate Court, Alappuzha, should be related to the events which had taken place one week prior to the commencement of Punnapra-Vayalar Movement as the Preliminary Enquiry could have been registered at least one week prior to the above said period, it is urged. Per contra, the petitioner's counsel would contend that Ext.P-1 document has been issued from the Office of the District Collector, Alappuzha, as part of the records they have maintained in relation to Punnapra-Vayalar Movement and those aspects have been so stated by the State Government in Ext.P-10 Government letter dated 12.12.2012 and further that though the original of Ext.P-2 convict register is now not available, the genuineness of Ext.P-2 is corroborated at least with reference to the former Sessions Case, on the basis of the judgment dated 9.12.1949 of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, in S.C.No.11/1124 ::13:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 ME and that it probabilise the case of the petitioner that other entries in Ext.P-2 convict register in relation to the latter case is only treated as genuine unless there are compelling circumstances to the contrary. Even if that be so, this Court this Court is of the view that as there are no materials to show, like the authenticated copy of the judgment in S.C.No.5/1123 ME or any other documents to show the factual events, which led to the institution of latter Sessions Case, are in relation to events which are directly connected with Punnapra-Vayalar Movement, which commenced from 7.3.1122 ME (24.10.1946) onwards, the matter requires a remit to the respondent-State authority. As held by the Supreme Court, the standard of proof in cases relating to claims of freedom fighter is regulated by the inferior standards of preponderance of probability and on the basis of material evidentiary aspects it should at least be probabilised that the claimant had suffered actual imprisonment for the minimum prescribed period of 6 months in criminal cases, which have arisen in relation to the freedom movement. It will be profitable to refer para 7 of the decision in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India & ors ., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 8, which reads as follows: > 7. The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon ::14:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As the object of the Scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the Scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by the Scheme had suffered for the country about half-a-century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the Scheme. The case of the claimants under this Scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touchstone of the test of “beyond reasonable doubt”. Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence. Therefore, the matter will have to be reconsidered by the competent authority of the State Government as to whether there are necessary materials to show that the factual events in relation to latter S.C.No.5/1123 ME on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum, were in relation to events which are directly connected with Punnapra-Vayalar Movement, which commenced from 24.10.1946 onwards. The 2nd respondent-State Government may ascertain from the Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum, as to whether records pertaining to S.C.No.5/1123 ME on the file of the Additional Sessions Court is available with them and if so, to make available an authenticated copy of the same to the State Government for perusal. If ::15:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 copy of the said judgment is not available with the Sessions Court, Trivandrum, on account of destruction or non-availability due to long lapse of time, the Sessions Court may inform the 2nd respondent about its non-availability. If a copy of such judgment is available, the 2nd respondent may ascertain therefrom as to whether the events in relation to the latter Sessions Case are directly connected to the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement which commenced from 24.10.1946, etc. The petitioner may also make available any additional materials to the 2nd respondent-State Government in order to fortify her contention that the latter Sessions Case is in relation to events, which had taken place as part of Punnapra-Vayalar Movement. The competent authority of the State Government will also give their concerned opinion about Ext.P-2 convict register extract and convey their views in that regard to the 1st respondent. It is also now not known to this Court as to on what material basis the Tahsildar had reported to the Collector that the clash between the two rival fishermen groups was one of the aspects which led to the Punnapra-Vayalar struggle, as mentioned in the concluding portion of the penultimate paragraph of Ext.P-10. Whether those observations are on the basis of some objective and reliable materials or on the basis of opinions and hearsay details collected from the locality, ::16:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 etc., are all matters to be ascertained by the 2nd respondent-State Government. The District Collector could be instructed to give a detailed report on those aspects so as to precisely point out the objective materials, if any, for such opinion. The petitioner may also point out materials from historical texts or archival materials to buttress her case in that regard. It is also pertinent to note that Sri.K.K.Sathish, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to pages 216-217 of Chapter X (“Punnapra-Vayalar”) of the Book “Triumph and Tragedy in Travancore” authored by the eminent historian Prof:A. Sreedhara Menon, which read as follows: “The first incident took place at Kalarkode where a rebellious mob paraded under the leadership of uniformed ex-army men in defiance of the law and was dispersed by the military. One man was killed and one injured when the military opened fire. At about the same time, an armed mob attacked the Police Outpost at nearby Punnapra, a coastal village inhabited by fishermen. These fishermen had been engaged in incessant skirmishes with the local boat owners. A Police Outpost had been set up temporarily in the house of a local Congressman by name Aplon Aroj. It was manned by a Sub-Inspector, three Head Constables and eighteen Constables. The rebels were implementing their plan to seize the rifles from the policemen here by launching the attack. They were armed with bamboo shafts, knives, spears etc. The Inspector of Police Velayudha Nadar, supposed to be a Communist sympathiser and three policemen were stabbed to death and ten were inured. The other policemen fired in self-defence, killing 27 rebels and injuring ten. The rebels were able to seize nine rifles from the police. In the meantime thousands of workers armed with bamboo shafts etc moved from Alappuzha town and neighbouring areas towards Punnapra in response to the call of the Trade Union Congress. This led to clashes between the police and the rebels. In the police firings that took place about 200 persons are estimated to have lost their lives.” (emphasis supplied) ::17:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 On the basis of the above historical account, Sri.K.K.Sathish, learned counsel for the petitioner, would point out that an armed mob had attacked the police out post at Punnapra, which was a coastal village inhabited by fishermen and that the fishermen in that village were engaged in incessant skirmishes with boat owners, etc. Accordingly, the petitioner would urge that the skirmishes and violence of the fishermen were also igniting factors in the incidents at Punnapra and would thus attempt to connect the incidents in the Sessions Case to the Punnapra events. It is for the petitioner to urge all such aspects based on the historical and archival materials before the respondent-State Government, who should carefully evaluate all such aspects. 5. After considering all relevant aspects of the matter, the 2nd respondent-State Government may take a considered decision as to whether the case of the petitioner that her father's involvement in the the latter Sessions Case was on account of his involvement in Punnapra-Vayalar Movement is probabilised as stated hereinabove and whether her case is to be recommended to the 1st respondent-Union Government for consideration under the Central Scheme. The petitioner will be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the competent authority of the 2nd respondent, through authorised ::18:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 representative/counsel, if any, and she should also be given sufficient time to produce necessary additional materials as stated herein above. A decision in this regard should be taken by the 2 nd respondent-State Government within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. In order to save further time, it is also directed that the Sessions Court, Trivandrum, need not wait for any official request from the 2nd respondent-State Government and should make a thorough search as to whether records in relation to S.C.No.5/1123 ME on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum, are still available with that court and if so available, authenticated copies of the same should be furnished to the 2nd respondent-State Government as well as to the petitioner by registered speed post. If on the other hand, it is found by the Sessions Court, Trivandrum, that a copy of the said judgment or such other related documents are not available on account of destruction or non-availability due to lapse of time, then the said fact also may be then intimated to the 2nd respondent and a copy of the said communication may also be marked to the petitioner in the address as shown in the cause title. ::19:: W.P(C).No.18396 Of 2013 7. Depending upon the decision that is to be rendered by the 2nd respondent-State Government as aforesaid, the competent authority of the 1st respondent-Union Government may pass appropriate orders on the claim of the petitioner for freedom fighters' pension under the Central Scheme and orders in that regard should be passed by the 1st respondent-Union Government within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the communication in that regard from the 2nd respondentState Government. The Registry will forward a certified copy of this judgment to the Sessions Court, Trivandrum, for necessary information and further action. The Sessions Court, Trivandrum should submit a report to the Registry of this Court as to the action taken by that Court, on the aforesaid aspects, for the perusal of this Court. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge. Bkn/- // True copy // P.A to Judge//