High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeOriginal Petition allowed; Ext.P9 quashed; dire...

P. N. Paraman and others v. Union of India and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:OP No. 10129/2003 (E)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • T. R. Ramachandran Nair
Judgment Date
2007-08-22
Court Decision / Holding
Ext.P9 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to forward the Verification cum Recommendation Report to the 1st respondent within six weeks from the copy of this judgment. The 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders within two months from receipt of records. Since the petitioner is deceased, the widow’s claim and the dependent petitioners’ rights under the scheme shall be considered, with arrears as applicable from the date of the application (16.04.1998) by the Central Government. Original Petition is allowed accordingly.
Final Disposition
Original Petition allowed; Ext.P9 quashed; directions issued to process the Verification cum Recommendation Report and to pass orders by the Central Government; widow’s claim under the pension scheme to be considered in accordance with the scheme.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P. N. Paraman, Udanchery House, Pollathai P.O., Valavanadu S.L. Puram, Alappuzha District
  • Parvathy Bhargavi, W/o Late P.N. Paraman, Udanchery House, Pollathai P.O., Valavanadu, S.L. Puram, Alappuzha Dt.
  • K.B. Lalitha, D/o Late P.N. Paraman, Udamssseriyil Veedu, Pollathai P.O. -DO-
  • P. Purushothaman, S/o Late P.N. Paraman, -DO-
  • P. Sarada, D/o Late P.N. Paraman, Vaisakh, Vellanikkara P.O., Trichur Dt.
  • P. Latha, D/o Late P.N. Paraman, Karuvallil, Muhamma P.O., Alappuzha Dt.
  • P. Syamala, D/o Late P.N. Paraman, Rattam Veedu, Varanad P.O., Cherthala Taluk

Respondents

  • Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters' Division, New Delhi-110 003
  • State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, General Administration (FFP.A) Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K. K. Satheesh

Counsels for Respondents

  • • D. Somasundaram
  • • V. T. K. Mohan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Original Petition concerns a freedom fighter pension claim under the SSS Pension Scheme, 1980, pursued by the deceased petitioner P. N. Paraman and his legal heirs as addl petitioners. The first petitioner had actively participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar struggle; an arrest warrant was issued and he went underground for over a year (1946–1947). He had earlier been granted the Freedom Fighters' Pension (State Pension) by Ext.P2 (21.07.1994). The application for SSS pension (Ext.P3, 16.04.1998) faced rejection via Ext.P4/Ext.P9 due to non-production of required records; the government demanded a Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC) and other documents. The petitioner furnished Exts.P5–P8, including NARC certificates and a personal knowledge certificate, arguing that records of the warrant are not available and that he had suffered in the freedom movement. The respondents resisted, asserting the NARC certifiers were not acceptable and that the cited records do not conclusively prove the petitioner’s link to the case. The petition cites Mukund Lal Phandari v. Union of India and Gurdial Singh v. Union of India, and the court references Sadananda Swamy v. Union of India to urge a lenient approach where records are unavailable. The court quashes Ext.P9, directs verification/recommendation to be processed, and holds that the widow may seek relief under the scheme. The petition is allowed accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

SSS Pension Scheme, 1980Freedom Fighters' Pension (State Pension)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC) as sufficient proof when official records are not available
  • Lenient judicial approach in freedom fighter pension claims when records are unavailable (as per Sadananda Swamy v. Union of India)
  • Reliance on consistent pleading and non-availability certificates to establish entitlement in absence of direct records

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the deceased freedom fighter had already undergone the prescribed sufferings and was considered for state pension; Ext.P3 for SSS pension should be entertained in light of Exts.P5–P8 and the NARC certificates declaring unavailability of records. They urge reliance on Supreme Court precedents (Mukund Lal Phandari and Gurdial Singh) and Sadananda Swamy to justify a lenient approach when records are not available, and demand processing of the Verification cum Recommendation Report and issuance of orders by the Central Government, including arrears to the widow under the scheme.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argue that the NARC certificates are not from an eligible certifier and that Exts.P5 and P6 do not conclusively link the petitioner to the case. They assert that there is no reliable non-availability of records certificate, and that the District Collector’s report dated 25.01.2003 not to recommend stands. They seek dismissal or denial of the petition on the basis that without proper certificates and records, pension benefits cannot be granted.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Mukund Lal Phandari v. Union of IndiaAIR 1993 SC 2127PositiveCited to support the principle that where records are not available, the claim relating to a freedom fighter can be entertained and guided by underlying jus ad bellum principles.
Gurdial Singh v. Union of India2001 (8) SCC 8PositiveCited alongside Mukund Lal Phandari to underscore a permissive approach in the absence of direct records.
Sadananda Swamy v. Union of India2004 (2) KLT 76 (SN)PositiveCited as authority for leniency toward petitions where records are unavailable, especially in the context of freedom fighters.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P. N. Paraman and others v. Union of India and State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2007 / 31ST SRAVANA 1929 OP.No. 10129 of 2003(E) ## PETITIONER: 1. P.N.PARAMAN, UDANCHERY HOUSE, POLLATHAI P.O., VALAVANADU S.L.PURAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ## **ADDL. PETITIONERS IMPLEADED** 2. PARVATHY BHARGAVI, W/O. LATE P.N. PARAMAN, AGED 78, UDANCHERY HOUSE, POLLATHAI P.O., VALAVANADU, S.L. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA DT. 3. K.B. LALITHA, D/O. LATE P.N. PARAMAN, AGED 57, UDAMSSERIYIL VEEDU, POLLATHAI P.O. -DO- 4. P. PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O. LATE P.N. PARAMAN, AGED 54, -DO-DO- 5. P. SARADA, D/O. LATE P.N. PARAMAN, AGED 42, VAISAKH, VELLANIKKARA P.O., TRICHUR DT. 6. P. LATHA, D/O. LATE P.N. PARAMAN, AGED 39 KARUVALLIL, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DT. 7. P. SYAMALA, D/O. LATED P.N. PARAMAN, AGED 36, RATTAM VEEDU, VARANAD P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK. (ADDL. PETITIONERS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO. 7360/05 DT. 22.08.2007) BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHEESH ## RESPONDENTS: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE - SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS' DIVISION, NEW DELHI-110 003. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP.A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM, ADDL.CGSC SRI. V.T.K. MOHAN for R2. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 10129/2003 : 2 : ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 17529/2003 IN O.P. NO. 10129/2003 CLOSED 22.08.2007 SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. ## **APPENDIX** ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: - EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SSS PENSION SCHEME, 1980. - EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. 41460/94 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DATED 21.7.1994. - EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR GRANT OF SSS PENSION DATED 16.4.1998. - EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.H3-269/98/SR DATED -32000 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA TO THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NARC ISSUED BY THE SUPDT. OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA DATED 01.06.2000. - EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NARC ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALEPPEY IN CASE NO. P.E.7/1122 ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL COURT, ALLEPPEY. - EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PKC ISSUED BY SRI. NARAYANAN RAMANKUTTY. - EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE EXTRACT OF THE CONVICT REGISTER OF CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM ISSUED BY THE SUPDT. OF THAT PRISON IN RESPECT OF SRI. NARAYANAN RAMANKUTTY. - EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. H3.28582/02/D.DIS. DATED 24.10.2002 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA TO THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2002. /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. ## T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J ================================ ## O.P. NO. 10129 OF 2003 ## ================================ Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2007. ## JUDGMENT The deceased 1st petitioner was a freedom fighter who had actively participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar Struggle during the freedom struggle. On account of his active participation in the said struggle, arrest warrant was issued against him by the Special Magistrate Court, Alleppey in case No. P.E.7/1122 M.E. He had gone underground for a period of more than one year from November, 1946 to December, 1947 pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued against him. 2. The deceased 1st petitioner was granted Freedom Fighters' Pension (State Pension) as per Ext.P2 order dated 21.07.1994. Ext.P3 dated 16.04.1998 is the application for pension under the S.S.S. scheme. 3. By Ext.P4, the District Collector directed the petitioner to produce the documents like warrant of arrest or the copy of the register showing the persons who have gone underground and in the absence of the same, Non-availability of Records Certificate O.P. NO. 10129/2003 :2 : from the Sub-Jail/Central Jail, office of the District Superintendent of Police, State Intelligence Bureau and Village Crime Book and an affidavit attested by the Judicial First Class Magistrate. In reply to the same, the petitioner produced Ext.P5 NARC from the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha, Ext.P6 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha, Ext.P7- Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri. Narayanan Ramankutty and Ext.P8, the extract of the Convict Register relating to the certifier. 4. The District Collector by Ext.P9 informed the petitioner that the government has rejected the application as copies of official records or other acceptable certificates have not been produced by the petitioner. Again, the petitioner filed Ext.P10 before the State Government requesting to recommend the case of the deceased petitioner, relying upon the principles declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Mukund Lal Phandari v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 2127) and Gurdial Singh v. Union of India (2001 (8) SCC 8).** O.P. NO. 10129/2003 :3 : 5. Since no further action was taken, the original petition is filed seeking various reliefs. The petitioner expired on 03.02.2005 and the additional petitioners have been impleaded as per Order in I.A. No. 7360/2005. 6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein the stand taken is that certificate of Sri. Ittiyathi Vasudevan cannot be accepted as he is not an eligible certifier. With regard to the NARC from the Superintendent of Police and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, the stand taken is that there is nothing to conclusively show that the petitioner had any connection with the case. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner has not produced any reliable Non-availability of Records Certificate. The counter affidavit shows that the District Collector on 25.01.2003 submitted a report not recommending the case in the absence of any acceptable documents. 7. The counter affidavit shows that no objections have been taken in respect of Exts. P7 and P8. The certificate issued by Sri. Narayanan Ramankutty and the extract of the Convict Register gives details of his imprisonment. The eligibility of the said O.P. NO. 10129/2003 :4 : certifier have been accepted in other cases also. The question is whether the objection that the NARCs are not acceptable is correct. In the NARC issued by the Superintendent of Police - Ext.P5 it is clearly certified that no records are available, in respect of the certificate sought for and in the NARC issued from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court also, it is recorded that the records of the year 1122 have already been destroyed. Therefore, it is a case where the competent authorities have certified that the records relating to the warrant of arrest sought for by the petitioner are not available. It is not explained in the counter affidavit as to what are the requirements of a valid N.A.R.C. At any rate, when the above certificates convey the idea that the records are not available, there is no justification in rejecting the same. The above is supported by the judgment of this Court in **Sadananda Swamy v. Union of India** (2004 (2) KLT 76)(SN) where the petitioner had filed an application pointing out the particular case number showing him as an accused and when the court has certified that the records relating to that order are not available, the rejection of the certificate was O.P. NO. 10129/2003 :5 : held evidently wrong. It was observed that " in such a situation taking a lenient view one can only go by the consistent pleading of the petitioner that the case relates to the freedom movements." The very same situation arises here also. 8. Apart from that, this is a case where for the very same suffering in the freedom struggle, the deceased petitioner had been granted pension by the District Collector as per order dated 21.7.1999. It is evident that the same was granted to him satisfying that he is a genuine freedom fighter and that he had undergone the very same suffering. It is, therefore, a case where the action taken by the District Collector not to recommend the application for pension is clearly without any application of mind. 9. Therefore, Ext.P9 is quashed and there will be a further direction to the 2nd respondent to forward the Verification cum Recommendation Report to the 1st respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders thereon within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of the records from O.P. NO. 10129/2003 :6 : the State Government. Now, that the petitioner is no more, the application of the widow who is the additional petitioner here has to be considered in accordance with the scheme and the claim for arrears from the date of receipt of the application dated 16.04.1998 will also be considered by the Central Government. The Original Petition is allowed accordingly. ## **T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.** rv O.P. NO. 10129/2003 :7 : T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J ------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 10129 of 2003 ------------------------------------- 22nd day of August, 2007 JUDGMENT O.P. NO. 10129/2003 :8 :