Union of India v Leela Dayanandan & ors. (WA No. 937 of 2019)

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & ## THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ## TUESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 ## WA NO. 937 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26289/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA dated 11.7.2018 ## APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1: UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOT. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, A WING, JAISING ROAD, NEAR YMCA, NEW DELHI 110 001 BY ADV SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC ## RESPONDENTS: - 1 LEELA DAYANANDAN, WO LATE DAYANANDAN K, PUTHENPURACKAL, CHERTHALA CANAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 007 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GAD-FFP-A DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 - 3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA 688 001 - 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA 688 002 - 5 RAJANI P.D, D/O LATE LEELA DAYANANDAN K, PUTHENPURACKAL, CANAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA. (IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 20.12.2022 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2022) - 6 SANU B.D (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED) S/O LATE LEELA DAYANANDAN, GOKULAM, CANAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA (IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 20.12.2022 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2022) BY ADV K.K.SATHISH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 2 :: ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 20[th] day of December, 2022 ## S.MANIKUMAR, C.J. Instant writ appeal is filed by Union of India, represented by Deputy Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter's Division, New Delhi, respondent No.1 in the writ petition, challenging the judgment passed in W.P. (C)No.26289/2013 dated 11.7.2018. 2. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge directed the appellant to grant Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (freedom fighter's pension), to the writ petitioner along with arrears thereon, within a time frame. ## 3. Relevant portions of the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: “16. Accordingly, it is ordered that the matter in relation to the issuance of NARC alone is remitted to the competent authority of the 2[nd] respondent for consideration afresh. In order to avoid further delay and to expedite the administrative process, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 3[rd] respondent-District Collector will forthwith take steps to ascertain whether any of the records in relation to P.E.No.7/1122 M.E, on the file of the Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha, are available with the office of the District Collector. Steps in that regard should be duly completed W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 3 :: within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner will also be at liberty to file a written statement before the 3[rd] respondent-District Collector, Alappuzha, regarding his averments that in the case of P.A.Mathai, who had participated in the same movement and NARC was issued by the District Collector that no records are available in pertaining to P.E.No.7/1122 M.E. So also, the office of the 4[th] respondent-Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha, will also ascertain whether any of the records relating to P.E.No.7/1122 M.E are available with his office and steps in that regard should be completed by him within one month from the date notified for receiving a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, respondents 3 & 4 shall furnish a report to the competent authority of the respondent-State Government as to whether or not any records pertaining to P.E.No.7/1122 M.E are available and as a matter of fact such records are not available then they should issue NARC in the requisite proforma, if any, to the competent authority of the State Government. It is further made clear that Ext.P-3 NARC already issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha (which is the successor of the Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha), that no records are available with the office will remain in tact and could be relied on by the State Government and no fresh enquiry need be made with the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. 17. Based on the above said reports of respondents 3 & 4, the 2[nd] respondent-State Government will report to the competent authority of the Union Government as to whether or not any of the records relating to P.E.No.7/1122 M.E are available and if as a matter of fact such records are not available as certified by respondents 3 & 4 then the competent authority of the State Government should also ensure that NARC in the prescribed proforma as prescribed in the Central Scheme should be duly furnished to the competent authority of the Union Government and this shall be done within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the aforesaid report of respondents 3 & 4. It is further made clear that Ext.P-6 recommendation letter will remain in tact on all other aspects and the matter is remitted only for the W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 4 :: limited issue in regard to NARC. While sending the communication, the State Government may also reiterate all the other views already stated by them in Ext.P-6 letter. In the light of the above said findings and observations made by this Court hereinabove, it is ordered and declared that the matter is remitted only for the limited purpose of consideration of the issues arising out of NARC and no other matter. It is ordered that on all other grounds the claimant is eligible for the grant of freedom fighters' pension. If the competent authority of the respondent-State Government finds it appropriate to issue NARC in the prescribed proforma to the competent authority of the Union Government based on the report that may be submitted by respondents 3 & 4 as aforestated, then it is ordered that the competent authority of the Union Government will ensure that orders are passed granting pension to the petitioner under the Central Scheme, within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the communication in that regard that is to be sent by the 2nd respondent-State Government as aforestated. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.” 4. Brief facts leading to the filing of W.P.(C) No.26289/2013 are that; the petitioner had applied for Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension in the year 1998, on account of the participation of the her husband in the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement. Pending consideration of the same, petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.14003/2009 before the writ court, which was disposed of by judgment dated 13.02.2012, with a direction to the Government of Kerala, to furnish its verification report to the Central Government. On receipt of the report from the State W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 5 :: Government, claim of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the Union Ministry vide order dated 01.10.2013, on the ground that the claim did not meet the evidentiary requirements and eligibility criteria of the SSS Pension Scheme. 5. Being aggrieved, W.P.(C) No.26289/2013 has been filed by the 1[st] respondent herein seeking the following reliefs: - “i) declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension” (SSS Pension). - ii) call for the records leading to the issue of ExhibitP13 and quash its original by issuance of a writ of certiorari; - iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, the respondent to grant the benefit of SSS Pension to the petitioner with the actual arrears due to him within a stipulated time.” 6. Refuting the averments contained in the writ petition, and reliefs sought for, appellant has filed counter affidavit before the writ court. After considering the rival contentions raised by both the parties, writ court disposed of the writ petition directing the appellant – Union of India, to grant SSS pension to the writ petitioner/1[st] respondent herein, as extracted above. 7. Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed basically contending that the writ court ignored the objects of the W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 6 :: Scheme, which provides that the appellant is the final authority to decide as to whether the claimant is entitled to the pension or not. Hence, it is submitted that appellant is not bound by the recommendation of the State Government. 8. Appellant has further contended that the writ court failed to consider the fact that there are numerous discrepancies in the application of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, which were pointed out by the State Government. Despite the discrepancies, the State Government, merely to comply with the order of the learned single Judge, granted recommendation in favour of the respondent, which according to the appellant, is not a proper recommendation, and rightly rejected the respondent’s application. 9. Further, relying on the decision of this Court in Sainaba v. Union of India reported in AIR 2006 KER. 269 , learned Central Government Counsel for the appellant submitted that the mere fact that the State Government has recommended an application or that the State Government has granted pension is not a ground to give the same under the Central Scheme. But, the applicant has to independently fulfill the criteria laid down W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 7 :: under the Central Scheme for grant of freedom fighter's pension, and the Central Government can alone decide as to whether the applicant has satisfied the eligibility criteria laid down under the SSS Scheme. 10. He further submitted that no rule or regulation has been brought to their notice obliging the Central Government to follow the opinion expressed by the State Government. The learned counsel also submitted that the Central Government would, of course, give due weightage to the recommendation of the State Government, but that does not mean the Central Government is bound to accept the offer made by the State Government and vice versa. 11. Appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asarabai v. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 2127 and submitted that as regards sufficiency of proof, the scheme itself mentions the documents, required to be produced before the Government. 12. He also submitted that it is not possible for the Courts to scrutinize the documents, which according to the writ petitioner, she had produced in support of her claim and W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 8 :: pronounced upon her genuineness. According to the appellant, it is the function of the Government to do so. 13. That apart, referring to clause 1.5 of the Revised Guidelines issued as per Order No.45/03/2014 FF(P) dated 6.8.2014, learned Central Government Counsel for the appellant submitted that no pension can be sanctioned in the name of the freedom fighter after his/her death even if the matter was under consideration. He also submitted that the said clause also entails that no life time arrears or dependent pension shall be sanctioned to his/her spouse/daughter after the death of the freedom fighter. 14. On this day when the matter came up for hearing, by filing I.A. No.2/2022, respondent No.1 has sought to receive the letter dated 26.10.2019 of the Principal Secretary to the Government, General Administration (FFP-A) Department, Thiruvananthapuram dated 26.10.2019, addressed to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, FFR Division, New Delhi, wherein, acting on the directions contained in W.P.(C) No.26289/2013 dated 11.07.2018, State Government has requested the Central Government for grant of W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 9 :: SSS Pension. Giving due consideration to the averments, I.A. No.2 of 2022 is ordered. Document is marked as Annexure-R1. 15. Letter No.FFP-A2/40/2018/GAD dated 26.10.2019 issued by the State Government is reproduced: ## “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA No.FFP-A2/40/2018/GAD. General Administration (FFP-A) Department 26/10/2019, Thiruvananthapuram From Principal Secretary to Government. To The Deputy Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, FFR Division - SZ Section, 2nd Floor, NDCC-II Building, Jaisingh Road, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001. Sir, Sub: Implementation of the judgment dated 11.07.2018 in WP(C) No.26289 of 2013 filed by Leela Dayanandan, W/o late Dayanandan K - regarding. Ref:- Judgment dated 11/07/2018 in WP(C)No.26289 of 2013. I am directed to invite your attention to the reference cited and inform that as per judgment dated 11.07.2018 in WP(C) No. 26289 of 2013 the Hon'ble High Court has disposed of the WP(C) with the following directions: …. Accordingly, it is ordered that the matter in relation to the issuance of NARC alone is remitted to the competent authority of the 2[nd] respondent (State Government) for consideration afresh… … Based on the above said reports of respondents 3 & 4, the 2[nd] respondent-State Government will report to the competent authority of the Union Government as to whether or not any of the records relating to PE No.7/1122 M.E. are W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 10 :: available and if as a matter of fact such records are not available as certified by respondents 3 & 4 then the competent authority of the State Government should also ensure that NARC in the prescribed proforma as prescribed in the Central Scheme should be duly finished to the competent authority of the Union Government and this shall be done within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the aforesaid report of respondent 3 & 4. It is further made clear that Ext. P-6 recommendation letter will remain in tact on all other aspects and the matter is remitted only for the limited issue in regard to NARC. While sending the communication, the State Government may also reiterate all the other views already stated by them in Ext P-6 letter. In the light of the above said findings and observations made by this Court herein above, it is ordered and declared that the matter is remitted only for the limited purpose of consideration of the issues arising out of NARC and no other matter. It is ordered that on all other grounds the claimant is eligible for the grant of freedom fighters' pension. If the competent authority of the respondent- State Government finds it appropriate to issue NARC in the prescribed proforma to the competent authority of the Union Government based on the report that may be submitted by respondent 3 & 4 as aforestated, then it is ordered that the competent authority of the Union Government will ensure that orders are passed granting pension to the petitioner under the Central Scheme, within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the communication in that regard that is to be sent by the 2[nd] respondent-State Government as aforestated. As part of the implementation of the judgment, the District Collector Alappuzha and the Commissioner of Land Revenue has informed that on verification of the convict judgment register kept in the office of the District Collector Alappuzha, the name of the petitioner's husband Late Dayanandan who is a Punnapra Vayalar freedom fighter in case No. PE 7/1122 ME on the file of the Magistrate Court Alappuzha is found not included in the convict judgment register. The State Police Chief and District Police Chief Alappuzha has informed that the matter was inquired W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 11 :: through Alappuzha Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Alappuzha Sessions Court and informed that no information relating to the case No.P.E 7/1122 M.E. has been mentioned in court documents and no information is available. The Director General of Police (Prison & Correctional Services Department) has reported that on verification of the available documents, no registers are available relating to the details of the freedom fighter late Dayanandan. As per the judgment the Hon'ble High Court directed it is further made clear that Ext.P-3 NARC already issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha (which is the successor of the special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha), that no records are available with the office will remain in tact and could be relied on by the State Government and no fresh enquiry need be made with the Chief Judicial Magistrate court, Alappuzha. In the circumstances as part of the implementation of the judgment dated 11.07.2018 in WP(C) No.26289/2013 Non Availability of Records Certificate in the prescribed format issued to the Government of India for considering the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana claim of the petitioner, Smt.Leela Dayanandan W/o. Late Sri. Dayanandan K. Yours faithfully, HEMA PRABHA.D ADDITIONAL SECRETARY For Principal Secretary to Government” 16. Heard Mr. Jaishankar V. Nair, learned Central Government Counsel for the appellant; Mr. K.K. Sathish, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner; and perused the material on record. 17. Exhibit-P7 order dated 1[st] October, 2013 shows that after examination of the claim application of the writ petitioner, the following shortcomings were found by the appellant, which reads as under: W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 12 :: - (i) The Petitioner has not submitted any document based Primary Evidence duly verified by the State Government from official records; - (ii) The Petitioner has submitted NARC duly issued by the State Government and 3 PKCS-Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Sri. Kunjan Sukumaran, Certificate issued by P.K. Chandranandan, Ex-MLA and Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by T.F. Yohannan @ Kannamadi Yohannan. The Government of Kerala had vide Letter No. 39187/FFP-A2/2009/GAD dated 07.04.2011 sent verification cum entitlement to pension report in respect of the petitioner and stated that the genuineness of the PKC issued by Sri Kunjan Sukumaran cannot be verified and the Certificate issued by Sri.P.K.Chandranandan Ex.MLA not found in the prescribed proforma. - (iii) In the said verification report sent vide the letter dated 12.02.2013, Government of Kerala has stated that the PKC issued by Sri. T.F. Yohannan @ Kannamadi Yohannan is found acceptable. On perusal of the PKC issued by Sri T.F. Yohannan @ Kannamadi Yohannan, it is found that it was issued on 24.11.2008 whereas the claimed underground suffering was during the period from October 1946 to August, 1947. It is very difficult for a normal person to remember such fine details approximately 62 years after an event has occurred. He is also found to have misused his status of a freedom fighter/eligible certifier and issued PKCS indiscriminately. For these reasons, the genuineness of the PKC issued by T.F. Yohannan in favour of the petitioner becomes doubtful and thus not acceptable. - (iv) In the said verification report sent vide letter dated 12.02.2013, the Government of Kerala has stated that “The Government agencies have reported that no records are available in those offices to confirm the participation of Sri. Dayanandan K in the freedom struggle." Despite this report, the decision of the Government of Kerala to issue NARC in favour of the petitioner is found to be merely in compliance of direction of the Hon'ble High Court and not based on office records and hence not acceptable. - (v) The positive recommendation of the Government of Kerala on the claim application communicated vide Letter No.64603/FFP-A2/2012/GAD dated 12.02.2013 is W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 13 :: found to be in compliance of direction of the Hon'ble High Court and not based on office records and hence not acceptable. - (vi) The petitioner has failed to submit valid documents to substantiate her claim.” 18. On similar facts and circumstances, in common judgment dated 20.09.2022 in W.A. Nos.675 and 719 of 2019, this Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by the Union of India. Said judgment squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 19. Relevant portions of the judgment dated 20.09.2022 in W.A. Nos. 675 and 719 of 2019 are reproduced: “30. Insofar as the reason for declining SSS Pension to Smt. Santhama Bhaskaran, respondent in W.A. No.675/2019 is concerned, it is stated in the order impugned before the writ court that she has failed to produce the original of Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC) from the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha and further that, Government of Kerala vide letter dated 31.12.2012 has recommended the claim application without specifying any reason for the positive recommendation. So far as the production of NARC and PKC are concerned, they revolve around paragraph 2.4 of the Pension Scheme, 1980, which clearly specifies that a person, on account of participation in the freedom struggle, was interned in his home or externed from his district for a minimum period of 6 months, is eligible subject to furnishing of order of internment or externment issued by the competent authority, from official records. It also specifies that in the absence of officials records, NARC from the State Government/UT Administration concerned, along with a certificate from prominent freedom fighter, who had proven jail sufferings of at least two years; who belonged to the same administrative unit and whose area of operation was same as that of the applicant, should be furnished. W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 14 :: 31. It is pertinent to note that the State Government in its letter dated 31.12.2012 has clearly stated that in the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Mr. Narayanan Ramankutty, the certifier has recommended that the husband of Smt. Santhama Bhaskaran, remained underground for more than six months from 7.3.1122 ME to 6.10.1122 ME and as per the copy of the convict register of the certifier, the date of sentence is 31.10.1124 (1949) to 26.1.1955. It is further stated therein that some Government agencies have reported that the records related to PE7/1122 ME are not available at their office. Therefore, the Government certified that “all concerned authorities of the State Government, who could have relevant reports in respect of the claim of the applicant, have been consulted and it is confirmed that the official records of the relevant time not available”. 32. In our view, the Union Government has declined the recommendation made by the State Government on the basis firstly that, in the application, the date of underground suffering caused by the writ petitioner has not tallied with the date mentioned by the State Government in its recommendation. In our view, merely because there is a difference in the dates mentioned in the application submitted by the writ petitioner, that by itself cannot turn out to be a ground for rejecting the application for the grant of SSS Pension. We are also of the opinion that the Union Government cannot simply ignore the recommendation made by the State Government, without assigning appropriate reasons. 33. On a perusal of the impugned judgments, we are convinced that the learned single Judge has taken into account the entire aspect of the matter and noted that the PKC issued by Mr. Kunjan Sukumaran has been duly acknowledged by the State Government authorities and letter of recommendation has also been issued; and therefore, even if it is assumed for a movement that the PKC of Mr. Kunjan Sukumaran is not acceptable, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19452/2013 is mainly placing reliance on the PKC issued by Mr. Narayanan Ramankutty. However a conclusive finding is rendered by the learned single in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.10470/2013 dated 30.05.2018 that the non-consideration of PKC issued by Mr. Narayanan Ramankutty is unreasonable and arbitrary. Apart from that, the various pros and cons of the issues were considered by the earned single Judge before W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 15 :: arriving at the definite and final conclusion in respect of the writ petition filed by Smt. Santhama Bhaskaran. 34. In so far as the claim of Mr. A.V. Thampi, which is the subject matter of W.A. No.719/2019 is concerned, the Central Government has rejected his application, basically relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4684 of 2006 [ UOI v. Pilli Ramachandraiah ] and held that the claim of Mr. A.V. Thampi does not meet the eligibility criteria and evidentiary requirements of SSS Pension Scheme, 1980. 35. However, the State Government, in the recommendation dated 24.12.2012, has stated in categorical terms that pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.10623/2019 dated 28.02.2012, Mr. A. V. Thampi, the writ petitioner, was directed to submit the originals of Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC) and Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC), and as directed by the Government, he has produced the originals of NARC from CJM Court, Alappuzha as well as Superintendent of Police Alappuzha. and PKCs issued by two certifiers, viz., H. K. Chakrapani and T. K. Yohannan. 36. Therefore, it was unequivocally certified that all concerned authorities of the State Government, who could have relevant records in respect of the claim of the applicant, have been consulted and it is confirmed that the official records of the relevant time are not available. However, the Union Government has chosen to decline the claim of the writ petitioner basically stating that the PKC given by Mr. H. K. Chakrapani is not acceptable firstly because, he has been misusing his status of a freedom fighter and issuing the PKCs indiscriminately; secondly, he was given pension in 2002, by giving benefit of doubt; and therefore, the PKC issued by Mr. H.K. Chakrapani cannot be relied on. It is also stated in the rejection order by the Central Government that the secondary evidence should be reliable enough to induce a reasonable belief that the applicant fulfills the conditions of the scheme, and concluded that the PKC cannot be taken as a genuine or conclusive proof as it can be obtained without much effort. It is also pointed out that the positive recommendation of the State Government is not binding on the Central Government, if the conditions necessary for the grant of pension are not fulfilled. Accordingly, the claim of Mr. A. V. Thampi was rejected holding that he is not eligible for SSS Pension as per the Scheme, 1980. W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 16 :: 37. In our considered opinion, if the certificate issued by Mr. H. K. Chakrapani was not acceptable, it is clear from the recommendation made by the State Government that the certificate issued by Mr. T. K. Yohannan was taken into account by the State Government. 38. Clause 2.4 of the Scheme, 1980 dealing with internment or externment, discussed above, requires only one certificate of a certifier. In that view of the matter also, the rejection made by the Union Government on the ground that the certificate issued by Mr. H. K. Chakrapani is not acceptable, cannot be sustained because, there was a valid certificate issued by Mr. T. K. Yohannan and it was totally ignored by the Central Government for reasons best known to them. 39. In fact, the entire aspect of the matter was considered by the learned single Judge while passing the impugned judgment and directions were issued taking into account the provisions of Scheme, 1980, as well as the parameters required for the grant of SSS Pension to the eligible persons. It was also taking into account all aspects of the matter, which were vital for consideration, learned single Judge has rendered the impugned judgment, insofar as the claim made by Mr. A. V. Thampi is concerned. However, from the order passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, it is clear that the consideration made by it confined only to the certificate issued by Mr. H. K. Chakrapani. We could not find any reason in the order passed by the Central Government rejecting the claim of Mr. A. V. Thampi, regarding the certificate issued by a qualified certifier, Mr. T. K. Yohannan. 40. In sum and substance, the issues were elaborately considered by the learned single Judge and we are of the clear opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the observations and findings made by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgments. 41. On a totality of the facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant has not made out a case of jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities, justifying interference in the judgments under appeals, dated 09.07.2018 and 11.07.2018 of the learned Single Judge. Needless to say, appeals fail and accordingly, they are dismissed.” W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 17 :: 20. That apart, it could be seen from Annexure-R1 letter dated 26.10.2019, State Government has reiterated its stand. At the risk of repetition, relevant portions of the said letter are reproduced hereunder: “As part of the implementation of the judgment, the District Collector Alappuzha and the Commissioner of Land Revenue has informed that on verification of the convict judgment register kept in the office of the District Collector Alappuzha, the name of the petitioner's husband Late Dayanandan who is a Punnapra Vayalar freedom fighter in case No. PE 7/1122 ME on the file of the Magistrate Court Alappuzha is found not included in the convict judgment register. The State Police Chief and District Police Chief Alappuzha has informed that the matter was inquired through Alappuzha Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Alappuzha Sessions Court and informed that no information relating to the case No.P.E 7/1122 M.E. has been mentioned in court documents and no information is available. The Director General of Police (Prison & Correctional Services Department) has reported that on verification of the available documents, no registers are available relating to the details of the freedom fighter late Dayanandan. As per the judgment the Hon'ble High Court directed it is further made clear that Ext.P-3 NARC already issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha (which is the successor of the special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha), that no records are available with the office will remain in tact and could be relied on by the State Government and no fresh enquiry need be made with the Chief Judicial Magistrate court, Alappuzha. In the circumstances as part of the implementation of the judgment dated 11.07.2018 in WP(C) No.26289/2013 Non Availability of Records W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 18 :: Certificate in the prescribed format issued to the Government of India for considering the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana claim of the petitioner, Smt.Leela Dayanandan W/o. Late Sri. Dayanandan K.” 21. In fact, the entire aspect of the matter was considered by the learned single Judge, while passing the impugned judgment, and directions were issued, taking into account the provisions of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, as well as the parameters required for the grant of SSS Pension to the eligible persons. 22. It was also taking into account all aspects of the matter, which were vital for consideration, writ court has rendered the impugned judgment, insofar as the claim made by the petitioner is concerned. 23. In sum and substance, the issues were elaborately considered by the writ court and we are of the clear opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the observations and findings made by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment. 24. On a totality of the facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant has not made out a case of jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities, justifying W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 19 :: interference in the common judgment under appeal, dated 11.07.2018 of the learned single Judge. 25. Appellant is directed to calculate the arrears of SSS Pension as directed by the writ court in the judgment dated 11.7.2018 in W.P.(C)Nos.10064 and 26289 of 2018 and disburse the same to the legal representatives of the writ petitioner/1[st] respondent herein, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Needless to say, appeal fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. sd/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE jesxxx W.A.No.937 of 2019 :: 20 :: ## APPENDIX ## RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES Annexure R1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.FFP.A2/40/2018/GAD DATED 26-10-2019 ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVT.-2ND RESPONDENT. **==> picture [90 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** P.S. TO JUDGE