Saraswathy Kesavan Kottappallil Mannancherry Po vs Union of India and State of Kerala

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **--------------------** **PETITIONER(S)** **SARASWATHY KESAVAN KOTTAPPALLIL MANNANCHERRY PO, ALAPPUZHA** **BY ADV.SRI.J.OM PRAKASH** **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETAY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRSM, 2ND FLOOR, NDCC-II, BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI 110003** **2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETATY** - **TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.SATHEESH M.KUMAR, CGC R BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2018,** **THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **DXY** **WP(C).No. 17095 of 2015 (J)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.6.98** **EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DATED 4.11.97** **EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF VS ACHUTHANANDAN DATED 26.7.77** **EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE AD CARD ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OFINDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS** **EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.2.2010** **EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SRI. PA SOLOMAN EXT.MP DATED 10.1.2010** **EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR AMBALAPPUZHA PREPARD INTHE YEAR 1972 TOWARDS THE STATE PENSION APPLICATION** **EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 23.2.2010** **EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE SUPERINTENDANT OF THE SPECIAL SUB JAIL, ALAPPUZHA DATED 24.8.2010** **EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE COPY APPLICATION AND ORDER IN PE NO.7/1122 ME OF THE CJM COURT,ALAPPUZHA DATED 8.9.2010** **EXT.P11:A TRUE COPY OF THE RPRESENTATION DATED 9.10.2010** **EXT.P12:A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DATED 25.4.2007** **EXT.P13: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DATED 10.9.2010** **EXT.P14:A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DATED 23.6.2012** **EXT.P15: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA** **EXT.P16: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 274/18/2009 DATED 27.11.2014** **EXT.P17: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.4.2015 OF THE SECRETARY TO** ## **GOVERNMENT** **EXT.P18: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 14.5.2015.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)'EXHIBITS: NIL** **\\TRUE COPY\\** **PA TO JUDGE** ## **DXY** **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015 ----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of August, 2018** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who is the widow of a person who claims to have suffered imprisonment for more than 6 months. On account of his involvement, in a criminal case registered in connection with the Punnapra Vayalar Struggle is aggrieved by decision of the first respondent Union Government as per Ext.P18 proceedings dated 14.05.2015, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighters family dependent pension has been rejected. The prayers in this writ petition (Civil) filed on 08.06.2015 are as follows. i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Exts.P18 and quash the same. ii. Issue a writ of mandmus directing the first respondent to grant pension to the petitioner from the date of receipt of the Ext.P1 application. iii. Direct the first respondent to pray cost to the petitioner. iv. Grant such other further reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. 2. Heard, Sri. J Omprakash, learned counsel appearing for ## **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **::2** :: the petitioner, Sri.N.Nagaresh, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent (UOI) and Sri. Jestin Mathew, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent (State of Kerala). 3. It is the case of the petitioner that her deceased husband, C.K.Keasavan, had to suffer imprisonment/lock up for more than 6 months (from November 1946 to May 1947), an account of his involvement as an accused in criminal case registered as P.E.7/1122 M.E on the file of the Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha, due to his participation of Punnapra Vayalar Struggle. After the death of the husband, the petitioner was granted freedom fighters pension under the state scheme as per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 04.11.1997 issued by the District Collector, Alappuzha. The first respondent Union Government had issued proceedings dated 20.01.1998 whereby, six movements including the Punnapra Vayalar Struggle were notified as being recognised for the grant of freedom fighters pension under the Central Scheme, with prospective effect. Thereupon the petitioner had filed Ext.P1 application dated 18.06.1998 for the grant of freedom fighters dependent family pension under the Central **::3** :: ## **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** Swathanthratha Sainik Samman (SSS) Pension Scheme 1980, before the respondents. As no action was forthcoming the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.C.No.1830/08, in which this Court has passed an interim order dated 10.08.2010, whereby, the second respondent therein (State of Kerala) directed to forward the recommendations on the application under Central Scheme filed by the petitioner within one month, etc. The petitioner had mainly placed reliance on Ext.P6, Co-Prisoner certificate dated 10.01.2010 issued by one Sri.C.A.Solomon. The second respondent State Government, had issued Ext.P14 letter dated 23.06.2012 addressed to the first respondent Union Government wherein it was stated that the Co-Prisoner certificate issued by Sri.T.A.Solomon, (as per Ext.P6 herein), is not acceptable, as much as he has not actually suffered imprisonment for one year and therefore he is not an eligible certifier to issue such a Co-Prisoner certificate as per the central scheme. Consequently, the first respondent Union Government had also issued Ext.P14 proceedings dated 27.02.2014 formally rejecting the claim of the petitioner in view of Ext.P14, in view of the above said stand of the second respondent State ## **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **::4** :: Government. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C).No. 27418/2009 before this Court. The main contention urged by the respondents therein before this Court, was that Sri.P.A. Soloman had admittedly suffered imprisonment only for the period from February 1947 to December 1947 (11 months only), even as per his own certificate issued as per Ext.P6 and that therefore, he is not an eligible certifier to issue a Co-Prisoners certificate as per the central scheme in as much as he has not actually suffered the minimum one year jail imprisonment. This is the only ground on which the respondents had sought to sustained the rejection of the claim of the petitioner. This Court disposed of W.P.C.No. 27418 of 2009 as per Ext.P16 judgment dated 27.11.2014. This Court held in Ext.P16 judgment that the CoPrisoner's Certificate issued by the aforementioned Sri.P.A.Solomon, was already accepted in several cases as in _**Suseela Chakrapani v. Union of India (2009(2) KLT SN 49)**_ and in _**Lennyamma v. Union of India and others (2012(3) KLT 852)**_ and also _**Sadanada Swamy v. Union of India (2004 (2) KLT case No.92),**_ and that therefore, the ground of rejection raised by the respondents regarding the unacceptability of the Co-Prisoner **::5** :: ## **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** certificate issued by Sri.P.A.Solomon is not legal and proper, as he is the recipient of 'Tamrapathra', State Pension and Central Pension. Accordingly, this Court set aside the impugned Ext.P15 proceedings therein (Ext.P14 herein), and the consequent Ext.P17 proceedings (Ext.P15 herein) and directed the respondent State Government to forward recommendation based on the Co-Prisoner certificate issued by Sri.P.A.Solomon and after verifying other records to the first respondent without any further delay within a period of six weeks and thereafter the first respondent Union Government is directed to take necessary steps for considering the application based on such recommendation within a period of three months thereafter. 4. Later the second respondent State Government has issued Ext.P17 letter dated 16.04.2015 holding that in view of the specific findings made by this Court in Ext.P16 judgment that the ground of rejection that Sri.P.A.Solomon's Co-Prisoner certificate is not acceptable etc. is unsustainable, that they thereby are recommending the case of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Central Scheme. Thereafter, the first respondent Union Government has issued the impugned Ext.P8 proceedings stated 14.05.2015 rejecting ## **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **::6** :: the claim of the petitioner. The one of the grounds of rejection is that the Co-Prisoner issued by Sri.P.A.Solomon, is not acceptable as it was found in subsequent cases that he has issued such certificate to various other claimants and that his actual jail suffering is less than one year, therefore, he is not a eligible certifier. 5. The second ground of rejection is that though the State Government has reported that five agencies have inform them about non-availability of records in relation to the petitioner's claim, the State Government has not issued the formal NARC (Non Availability of Record Certificate), in the prescribed format as per the Central Scheme to the first respondent Union Government along with Ext.P17 recommendation. 6. Yet another ground of rejection is that the petitioner has not claimed that her husband jail suffering as an under trial prisoner from October 1946 to May 1947 was followed by a conviction. Further it is also stated that even as per the Co-Prisoner Certificate issued by Sri.P.A.Solomon, as per Ext.P16, he has certified that his personal knowledge was only about the imprisonment suffered by Sri.Kesavan, for a period from February 1947 to May 1947 (three months), and that **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **::7** :: the further version in Ext.P6 that even before his entry into sub-jail, the claimant (Sri. Kesavan) was in sub-jail from November 1946 etc. is not based on direct personal knowledge of the certifier in as much as Sri. Solomon was admittedly in the jail only for the period from February 1947 to December 1947 etc. 7. As regards the first ground of rejection it is to be noted that from the very same ground that Sri.P.A.Solomon, is not an eligible certifier to issue Co-Prisoner certificate as per Ext.P6 herein as he had suffered actual imprisonment only for 11 months and not for one year etc., was the subject matter of the specific challenge in the previous ground of litigation which led to Ext.P16 judgment. Therein it has been found by this Court that the said ground of rejection regarding the unacceptability of Sri.P.A.Solomon's CoPrisoner certificate is not sustainable as he is the recipient of 'Thamrapathra', State Pension and Central Pension etc. and also in view of the fact that the Co-Prisoner certificate issued by Sri.P.A.Solomon, Ex-Member of Parliament, was relayed upon by this Court in the cases as in _**Suseela Chakrapani v. Union of India (2009(2) KLT SN 49)**_ and in _**Lennyamma v. Union of India**_ **::8** :: ## **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** _**and others (2012(3) KLT 852)**_ and also _**Sadanada Swamy v. Union of India (2004 (2) KLT case No.92)**_ etc. are preferred to herein above. The said findings made by this Court in paragraph 3 of Ext.P16 judgment, has not been challenged by both the respondents including the first respondent in the manner known to law and so the said findings have become final and conclusive as between the petitioner and the respondents, more particularly the first respondent Union Government. The second respondent State Government has acted upon the said findings and thus issued Ext.P17 relied from recommendation. Whereas the first respondent Union Government, is not acting upon the said conclusive finding on the ground that as per the subsequent judgment of this Court in another case, it was found that Sri.P.A.Solomon is not an eligible certifier and that he has indiscriminately issued Co-Prisoner certificates to many claimants which were found unacceptable etc. 8. On that aspect, Sri.N.Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General would submit that it may be true that the 1[st] respondent Union Government has not challenged Ext.P-16 judgment by filing a review petition or appeal, but that subsequently, on facts, it has been **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **::9** :: found by this Court in the common judgment dated 30.5.1998 in W.P. (C).Nos. 791, 6699, 8821 and 10047 of 2013 that Sri.P.A.Solamon, exM.P. is not an eligible certifier to issue such a certificate under the Central Scheme, inasmuch as he had actually suffered imprisonment only for 11 months. Further, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1[st] respondent Union Government would also place reliance on paras 14 of the judgment dated 11.3.2016 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2538/2015 [arising out W.P.(C).No. 29317/2013], wherein it has been found that a person, in order to be an eligible certifier to issue a personal knowledge certificate under the abovesaid Central Scheme, should have suffered actual imprisonment for one year, without remission. It is pointed out that as per the Central scheme, certifiers both in relation to personal knowledge certificate (for proving claimed underground suffering) and the CoPrisoner's certificate (for proving claimed jail sufferings) should have suffered actual imprisonment for the requisite periods and that therefore the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 2538/2013 in the case of the eligibility for issuing personal knowledge certificate would apply with equal vigour and force in the **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **::10** :: case of a certifier who issues a Co-Prisoner's certificate as well. True that this Court in subsequent judgments has found on facts that Sri.P.A.Solaman is not an eligible certifier. But the fact of the matter in this particular case is that the findings made by this Court in para 3 of Ext.P-16 judgment have become final and conclusive as between the petitioner and the respondents, more particularly the 1[st] respondent Union Government inasmuch as the respondents have not challenged the said judgment in the manner known to law and therefore, such findings have attained finality. It is trite that the principles of _res judicata_ and constructive _res judicata_ could be imported to public law proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, importing the principles of _res judicata_ and constructive _res judicata_ it is only to be held that the said contention based on the eligibility of the said certifier, cannot be pressed into service in the facts and circumstances of this particular case. Therefore, the said ground of rejection that Sri.P.A.Solomon is not an eligible certifier to issue Ext.P-6 Co-Prisoner's certificate, is untenable and will stand rejected. 9. Yet another ground of rejection is that the petitioner has **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **::11** :: not established that her husband's underground jail suffering was followed by a conviction and that, in the absence of proving conviction, the claimant is not entitled to get pension under the Central scheme, etc. Matters in this regard are no longer _res integra_ and are fully covered against the 1[st] respondent Union Government by virtue of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in _**UOI v. Peter Devassia**_ , reported in 2003 (1) KLJ 467 = 2003 (1) KLT 248, wherein it was conclusively held by the Full Bench of this Court that the claimant need only to prove that he has suffered jail sufferings for the requisite period and it makes no difference whether he was discharged, acquitted or convicted in the criminal trial. Hence the said ground of rejection will also stand overruled. 10. Another ground of rejection is that, even according to the certificate issued by Sri.P.A.Solomon, as per Ext.P-6, he has only certified that he was actually in prison for the period from February 1947 to December, 1947 and the claimant (Sri.C.K.Kesavan) was in the same jail with him from February 1947 to May, 1947 (four months) and further that even before Sri.P.A.Solomon had entered into the sub jail, Sri.C.K.Kesavan was already in the said jail from ## **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** ## **::12** :: November 1946. It is contended by the 1[st] respondent Union Government that as the certifier was in the same prison only from February 1947 onwards, he has direct personal knowledge about the jail suffering of Sri.C.K.Kesavan, only from February 1947 to May 1947 (four months) and the further version therein that even before the entry of Sri.P.A.Solomon (certifier) to the jail, the claimant (Sri.C.K.Kesavan) was already in sub jail from November 1946, cannot be said to be on the basis of the direct personal knowledge of the certifier and it is only to be treated as hearsay. There is clear force and substance in the said ground urged by the 1[st] respondent Union Government. However, Sri.J.Omprakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even this ground of rejection is only to be rejected on the ground of bar under _res judicata_ and constructive _res judicata_ inasmuch as this factual ground was also available to both the respondents at the time of the previous of litigation, which led to Ext.P-16 and that since both the respondents, more particularly the 1[st] respondent Union Government, have not urged this ground before this Court at that time, the 1[st] respondent is also barred by the principles of constructive _res judicata_ as **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **::13** :: importable from the principles laid down in Explanation iv to Sec.11 C.P.C. 11. Per contra, Sri.N.Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General would forcefully argue that the bar under the constructive _res judicata_ is not applicable in the facts of this case as regards the abovesaid ground that the proof regarding the jail detention of the claimant from November 1946 to January 1947 can only be treated as hearsay evidence and not direct personal knowledge of the certifier. 12. It is to be noted that at the time rendering of Ext.P- 16 judgment the main matter under challenge was as to the sustainability of the stand of the respondent State Government that the personal knowledge certificate issued by Sri.P.A.Solomon is not acceptable as he is not an eligible certifier inasmuch as he has not suffered actual imprisonment for 12 months, going by his own version in that certificate. Even as per the interim order dated 10.8.2010 rendered in W.P.(C).No.27418/2009, this Court had only directed the respondent State Government to take a decision in the matter of recommendation and then forward the same to the 1[st] respondent Union Government. So at that time, there was no necessity for the 1[st] **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** ## **::14** :: respondent Union Government to pass a comprehensive order considering all the relevant aspects of the matter on the claim of the petitioner and they had formally passed Ext.P-15 proceedings dated 27.2.2014 rejecting the claim of the petitioner only in view of the abovesaid stand of the State Government regarding the lack of eligibility of Sri.P.A.Solomon to be a certifier. This Court in Ext.P-16 judgment had only found that the said stand of the State Government in treating Sri.P.A.Solomon as an ineligible is not sustainable inasmuch as this Court on facts had issued three judgments, wherein it was found that Sri.P.A.Solomon is an eligible certifier, as he is recipient of _Thamrapathra_ , State freedom fighter' pension and Central freedom fighter's pension, etc. The said ground of rejection adopted by both the respondents was held to be bad in law and this Court had set aside the impugned orders and directed the State Government to forward the recommendation based on the certificate issued by Sri.P.A.Solomon and had directed the 1[st] respondent Union Government to take appropriate action for considering the application based on the recommendation, within a period of three months. The State Government has not applied their mind on the **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **::15** :: abovesaid issue as to whether part of the period of detention of the claimant as sought to be established in Ext.P-6 certificate, is not on the basis of the direct personal knowledge of the certifier, even going by the very version projected in that certificate. On the other hand, the State Government had chosen to recommend the case of the claimant in view of the finding made by this Court in Ext.P-16 judgment that Sri.P.A.Solomon is an eligible certifier to issue such a certificate as in Ext.P-6 herein. It is only thereafter that the 1[st] respondent Union Government had opportunity to apply their mind and to pass a considered order, whereby they had decided to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that, part of the alleged jail suffering period of the claimant, Sri.C.K.Kesavan, cannot be said to be proved on the basis of the direct personal knowledge of the certifier inasmuch as the said certifier did not have direct personal knowledge regarding the jail suffering of the claimant, Sri.C.K.Kesavan, for the period prior to February 1947. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is bar of constructive _res judicata_ as against the 1[st] respondent to take recourse to the abovesaid specific ground, which was not the subject matter of challenge in Ext.P-16 judgment, inasmuch as there was no **::16** :: ## **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** fructified cause of action in that lis between the petitioner claimant and the 1[st] respondent Union Government at that stage of the matter. The issue as to whether the contents of Ext.P-6 Co-Prisoner's certificate would prove the claimed jail suffering of the claimant for the requisite minimum six months' period was not directly and substantially in issue before this Court at the time of rendering of Ext.P-16 judgment. Under the terms and conditions of the Central scheme, the 1[st] respondent Union Government will get competence to consider the merits of the claims only if the respondent State Government makes a positive recommendation in favour of the claimant. In the instant case, the considered stand of the respondent State Government in Ext.P-14 was that Sri.P.A.Solomon is not an eligible certifier inasmuch as he has not suffered the minimum prescribed 12 months' imprisonment, etc. The said stand was rejected by this Court on merits by this Court as per para 4 of Ext.P16 judgment. So after Ext.P-16 judgment it is not open to both the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the personal knowledge certificate relied on by the petitioner cannot be considered on the mere fact that it is issued by Sri.P.A.Solomon as **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **::17** :: he is not an eligible certifier. Such a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner cannot be pressed into service by both the respondents by virtue of the issues in that regard concluded and finalised in para 3 of Ext.P-16 judgment. Thereafter, the merits of the matter are at large ==== before the 1[st] respondent Union Government after the issuance of Ext.P-17 letter of the respondent State Government. It is only then that the 1[st] respondent Union Government gets the competence to examine fully the merits of the claim of the petitioner. Here the stand of the 1[st] respondent Union Government is that even going by Ext.P-6 certificate as it is, it can be seen that the certifier had direct personal knowledge of the jail suffering of the claimant only for the period from February 1947 to May 1947 (four months), which is two months short of the minimum six months' imprisonment period. It is clear like the day light from a mere reading of Ext.P-6 certificate that the version of the certifier that even before his entry into the jail, the claimant, Sri.C.K.Kesavan was undergoing jail suffering from November 1946 to January, 1947, cannot be said to be within the direct personal knowledge of the said certifier, as the certifier was admittedly in prison only for the period from February 1947 onwards. **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **::18** :: So in the instant case, the 1[st] respondent Union Government has not rejected Ext.P-6 merely on the ground that it is issued by a so-called ineligible certifier, but on the merits of the factual assessment made from the materials in Ext.P-6. Such a ground of rejection is certainly open to the 1[st] respondent Union Government and the said ground cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable. Therefore, on this ground alone, this Court is constrained not to interdict with Ext.P-18 rejection order. 13. There is yet another ground of rejection that the NARC in the prescribed format has not been issued by the State Government. The importance and crucial relevance of the Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC) to be issued by the State Government in the prescribed format as per the Central scheme has been dealt with in detail in a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in _**Union of India v. Lennyamma**_ reported in 2012 (3) KLT 852. This ground of rejection is also technically tenable inasmuch as admittedly the respondent State Government has not, on their own issued the NARC in the prescribed format and they are only referring to the non-availability of records as informed to them by five **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **::19** :: agencies. This is a technical aspect of the matter and if the petitioner were to succeed on all other aspects, then certainly this Court could have directed the State Government to ascertain the factual aspects relating to the non-availability of records from the various subordinate offices and then to issue a NARC in the prescribed format. But such a direction is not feasible in the facts and circumstances of this case inasmuch as the impugned Ext.P-18 rejection order is sustainable in view of the fact that Ext.P-6 CoPrisoner certificate does not establish the claimed the jail suffering of the claimant for the six months' period on the basis of acceptable secondary evidence. 14. Before parting with this judgment, it will be pertinent to quote the observations in para 3 of the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Sitaram Khandelwal v. UOI**_ reported in MANU/SC/1240/2003 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that when there is total paucity of material on record, it is difficult for the authorities to continue with the pension and that though the said stand of the respondent is justified, it does not mean that the claimant before the court was not a Swatantrata Senani and that it is **W.P.(C).No. 17095 of 2015** **::20** :: only on the ground that there was paucity of material that no such inference could be drawn by the authorities. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed in this case. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** \\True Copy\\ PA to Judge Dxy & Sdk+