High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-08-24Writ petition disposed of with directions as st...

T. D. Raveendran v. Union of India and State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.12874/2004-G

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
(Hon. Judge)
Judgment Date: 2007-08-24
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of in terms of the directions: quash Exts. P13 and P15; require the second respondent to reconsider the entire issue in light of fresh documents (Exts. P8, P14) and to forward a verification-cum-entitlement report to the first respondent within six weeks; the first respondent shall thereafter consider the application in accordance with the scheme and pass appropriate orders within two months; arrears from 13/04/1998 to be considered.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions as stated; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T. D. Raveendran

Respondents

Union of India
State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. K.K. Satheesh

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. S.R. Ajith (Addl. CGSC)
• Adv. Ajith Krishnan (Addl. CGSC)
• Govt. Pleader K.V. Manoj

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, a freedom fighter who participated in the Punnapra–Vayalar struggle, had been granted a State pension in 1988 and now seeks Central pension under the national scheme. His application was rejected (Ext. P13) on the grounds that the State Government did not forward a recommendation and because the personal knowledge certificates (PKCs) were not verified properly. He relied on PKCs from certifiers including P.K. Sukumaran, Narayanan Ramankutty, and P.K. Chandranandan, as well as a Narc issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this court in O.P. 37599/01, resolved by Ext. P7. The District Collector’s fresh hearing produced Exts. P10–P12 and P15, but Ext. P13 still encapsulated reasons for rejection. The court notes the State’s technical approach contrasts with liberal judicial doctrine, citing Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and R. Narayanan v. Union of India to emphasize a less technical, more evidence-based review of entitlement. The court quashes Exts. P13 and P15, directs reconsideration of the claim with fresh documents (Exts. P8 and P14), and requires the Government to forward a verification-cum-entitlement report to the first respondent within six weeks, with consideration and arrears to follow within specified periods. No costs.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Liberal interpretation of entitlement under pension schemes; avoid hyper-technical scrutiny.
Reliance on personal knowledge certificates of competent certifiers is permissible.
Policy of considering fresh documents/materials rather than dwelling on earlier defects.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that his claim for Central pension cannot be defeated on technical grounds when fresh materials and personal knowledge certificates have been produced. He argues that while State pension has been granted for participation in the freedom movement, Ext. P13’s grounds—lack of proper verification and non-forwarding by the State—are hyper-technical. Citing Gurdial Singh v. Union of India (2001) 8 SCC 8 and R. Narayanan v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 746), he urges liberal consideration of the claim and reliance on PKCs, not insisting on preserved official records for decades. He seeks quash of Exts. P13 and P15 and a direction to consider the fresh documents (Exts. P8, P14) and forward a proper entitlement report within six weeks, with final orders and arrears to follow within the scheme’s framework.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that central pension is contingent on a forward of recommendation by the State and that Ext. P13 rests on the record and verification procedures. They contend the District Collector’s observations about missing verification and reliance on PKCs require rigorous scrutiny, not automatic acceptance. They maintain the necessity of formal verification under the scheme, and that Ext. P15’s communication does not alter the need for a proper, state-backed recommendation; thus, Exts. P13 and P15 are legitimately grounded in administrative requirements. The court should not override these procedural prerequisites without a clear legal basis.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gurdial Singh v. Union of India	(2001) 8 SCC 8	Positive	Used to advocate a liberal approach to entitlement, supporting consideration of fresh materials over technical defects.
R. Narayanan v. Union of India and another	(AIR 1990 SC 746)	Positive	Supports reliance on personal knowledge certificates and non-requirement of decades-old official records; discourages hyper-technical insistence.

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 T. D. Raveendran 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** **FRIDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2007 / 2ND BHADRA 1929** **WP(C).No. 12874 of 2004(G)** **---------------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **-------------------** **T.D. RAVEENDRAN,S/O. DIVAKARAN, GURUKULAM, KAVUNKAL, MANNANCHERRY, PONNAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHEESH.** **RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------** **1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS DIVISION, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110 003.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP.A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV.SRI.S.R.AJITH, ADDL.CGSC, ADV. SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN, ADDL.CGSC, GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P.(C). NO.12874/2004:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR S.S.S. PENSION DTD. 13/04/1998.** ## **EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PKC ISSUED BY SRI. P.K. SUKUMARAN DTD. 13/04/1998.** **EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. H3/451/98/SR DTD. 04/08/2001 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 08/10/2001.** **EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PKC ISSUED BY SRI. NARAYANAN RAMANKUTTY AND THE EXTRACT OF HIS CONVICT REGISTER OF CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM IN RESPECT OF THE CERTIFIER SRI. NARAYANAN RAMANKUTTY.** ## **EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE N.A.R.C ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ALAPPUZHA.** ## **EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P. NO. 37599/01.** **EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.** ## **EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE PKC ISSUED BY SRI. H.K. CHAKRAPANI DTD. 21/09/2003.** **EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE CONVICT REGISTER OF CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM ISSUED BY THE SUPDT. IN RESPECT OF SRI. H.K. CHAKRAPANI.** **EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER OF SANCTION OF S.S.S. PENSION TO SRI. H.K. CHAKRAPANI VIDE NO. 119/PVS/104/99-FF (SZ) DTD. 18/06/2003 ISSUED BY R.1.** **EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 71423/FFP A2/2003GAD DTD. 07/11/2003 ISSUED BY R.2. TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 52/CC/KER/27/2001-FF (SZ) DTD. 05/01/2004.** ## **W.P.(C). NO. 12874/2004:** ## **EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE REPRESENATION DTD. 17/01/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2.** **EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 7813.FFP.A2/04/GAD DTD. 03/05/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.2.** **//TRUE COPY//** **prv.** ## **T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **W.P.(C).NO.12874 of 2004-G** **- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **Dated this the 24th day of August, 2007** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a freedom fighter who had participated in the Punnapra – Vayalar Struggle. He had been granted State pension with effect from 30.8.1988 for participation in the freedom movement, as per order dated 30.8.1988 of the District Collector. Presently, he is aggrieved by the rejection of the application for grant of Central pension by Ext.P13. The petitioner had relied upon the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Shri P.K. Sukumaran as well as that of Shri Narayanan Ramankutty and Shri P.K. Chandranandan. All these have been rejected by Ext.P13 for different reasons. He had also produced Ext.P6 NARC issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Alappuzha. Earlier he had approached this court by filing O.P. NO.37599/2001 and this court disposed of the same by Ext.P7 judgment. After that, a fresh hearing was conducted by the District Collector and then he had produced the certificate of Shri H.K. Chakrapani who is getting Central pension and is also a recipient of 'Thamrapathra'. Exts.P10 and P11 are the documents which were produced along with Ext.P8 representation and which relate to the certifier Shri H.K. Chakrapani. WPC 12874/2004 -2- 2. One of the reasons stated in Ext.P13 is that in the hearing before the District Collector, the petitioner's case whether he had gone underground for avoiding arrest or not, is not clear and hence the District Collector did not recommend his case. 3. The petitioner's claim is rejected mainly for the reason that the State Government has not recommended the same which is mandatory. Admittedly, the personal knowledge certificate issued by Shri H.K. Chakrapani has not been verified with the claim of the petitioner while forwarding Ext.P12 and no mention is made about it in Ext.P13. Again the petitioner has approached the State Government by Ext.P14, wherein he has relied upon the personal knowledge certificate issued by Shri H.K. Chakrapani. Since those documents are now available with the Government, the same is liable to be verified in accordance with law. 4. This is a case where the petitioner is receiving State Pension based on his suffering in the very same movement. Along with the additional affidavit, the petitioner has produced Ext.P15 letter dated 3.5.2004 of the Government stating that the District Collector reported that merely based on the certificate by Shri H.K. Chakrapani, the application cannot be recommended. No reasons are forthcoming from Ext.P15 as to why the personal knowledge certificate of Shri H.K. Chakrapani cannot be relied WPC 12874/2004 -3- upon. 5. The claim of the petitioner has to be considered not in a technical manner but taking a liberal view, as held by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in **Gurdial Singh v. Union of India (** (2001) 8 SCC 8). This case will show that even after granting State pension to the petitioner, the State is refusing to forward the recommendation to the Central Government by relying upon minute defects, differences, etc. in the application and other documents. It is true that if the claim is fraudulent, the Government is justified in not recommending the case. But here, there is no such case. That the petitioner is a genuine freedom fighter, is evident from the fact that the State has granted pension for participation in the very same movement. This is not disputed in the counter affidavit of second respondent. Therefore, the approach made by the authorities is clearly hyper technical in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in **R. Narayanan v. Union of India and another** (AIR 1990 SC 746) wherein the Supreme Court held that “no one can really expect official records to have been preserved for a period of 40 years to prove the treatment given to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him during the freedom struggle.” Therefore, there is no point in insisting upon production WPC 12874/2004 -4- of official records. When an applicant is entitled to rely upon the personal knowledge certificates of competent certifiers, the authority cannot pick and choose the defects in the other personal knowledge certificate which he might have produced earlier, to reject the fresh documents also. There should be a proper consideration on the basis of the fresh materials rather than harping on the defects or other deficiencies in respect of the documents which were produced earlier. This exercise is not seen made in this case. Further, there is a reference in the counter affidavit to an oral statement made by the petitioner before the District Collector that he had worked as a Peon in the office of the Union, etc. No such oral statement is seen recorded and kept in the file produced by the learned Government Pleader. The said aspect is being highlighted ignoring the personal knowledge certificates produced by the competent certifiers. 6. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent to reconsider the entire issue in the light of the fresh documents produced by the petitioner along with Exts.P8 and P14 and to enable the Government to do so, I quash Exts.P13 and P15. After verifying the same a proper verification-cum-entitlement report will have to be forwarded to the first respondent with appropriate recommendation, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The first respondent WPC 12874/2004 -5- shall thereafter consider the application in accordance with the scheme and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months thereafter. While granting pension, the claim of the petitioner for arrears with effect from the date of application (13/4/1998) will also be considered. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. **(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)** **kav/** WPC 12874/2004 -6- ## T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## JUDGMENT 9th August, 2007.