W.A No.1109 of 2019

W.A No.1109 of 2019 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WA NO. 1109 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23665/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3:** **1 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REP.BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, F.F.DIVISION, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI110 003 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2 THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INIDA, MINISTERY OF HOME AFFAIRS, F.F.DIVISON, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI - 110003 BY ADV SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC** ## **RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIOENRS/RESPONDENTS 2, 4 & 5:** |**1**|**C.H.NABEESA**| |---|---| ||**GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,**| ||**F.F.DIVISION, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-**| ||**110 003**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| |**2**|**GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,**| ||**REP.BY SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001**| |**3**|**THE SECRETARY,**| ||**GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP-A) DEPARTMENT ,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001**| |**4**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| ||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 553**| ||**BY ADV.SRI.TEK CHAND, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2**| ||**TO R4**| **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A No.1109 of 2019 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 24[th] day of November, 2022** ## **SHAJI P.CHALY,J** Captioned writ appeal is filed by the Government of India and one of its officials, who are respondent Nos.1 & 3 in W.P.© No.23665 of 2014, challenging the judgement of a learned Single Judge dated 30[th] July, 2014. 2. The subject issue relates to non-payment of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (SSSP Scheme) to the writ petitioner/1st respondent. w.e.f.01.04.1971. In fact, the said pension was granted with effect from the said date, however, that was rejected as per Exhibit P8 order dated 7.10.2011, on the ground that the Government of Kerala seems to have ignored the fact that the writ petitioner's late husband viz., Thakkitai Kadar was charge-sheeted and convicted among other sections under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code for theft; therefore the recommendation of the Government of Kerala is not record based and hence, unacceptable and that, claim of the writ petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria and evidentiary requirements of SSSP Scheme – 1980. 3. The case projected by the writ petitioner was that on the basis of the freedom struggle participation, petitioner's husband was granted freedom fighters W.A No.1109 of 2019 3 pension under the State Government Scheme as per Exhibit P3 order dated 28.2.1974, however, the Central Government issued Exhibit P8 order on 7.10.2011 declining the grant of SSS Pension. Petitioner's husband had submitted an application and it was forwarded by the Government as per Exhibit P6 dated 20.7.1999 along with Exhibit P1 extract of Under Trial Prisoner Register of Central Prison, Cannanore. The application was duly forwarded by the Secretary to Government, General Administration Department of the State of Kerala. Since no action was taken, the petitioner has approached this Court and by Exhibit P7 judgement dated 13.8.2009 in W.P.© No.23184/2009, this Court directed the respondents to take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner's husband. Thereafter, Exhibit P8 order was passed by the Government of India on 4.2.2010 rejecting the application. It is thus challenging Exhibit P8 order that the writ petition was filed. 4. The State Government has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that petitioner's husband was granted Kerala Freedom Fighters pension on the basis of Exhibit P1 jail certificate. Government had also stated that the original of the jail certificate viz., Exhibit P1 could not be verified by the District Collector since the original register was not traceable. 5. The learned Single Judge, after assimilating the rival contentions, has allowed the writ petition holding as follows: W.A No.1109 of 2019 4 “8. As a matter of fact in the present case, it has been clearly stated by the 2nd respondent State Government based on the report of the 5th respondent District Collector in Ext.P-7 that the petitioner's husband was granted freedom fighter's pension under the State's scheme as per Ext.P-3 dated 28.2.1974 only in the light of Ext.P-1 jail certificate dated 20.2.1973 issued by the Superintendent Central Jail, Bellary. Ext.P-3 pension sanctioning order under the State scheme has been issued on 28.2.1974. Going by the nature of the terms and conditions imposed in the State Rules stated herein above and taking into account the factual assertion made by the 2nd respondent and by the 5th respondent District Collector, as referred to in Ext.P-7 that Ext.P-3 pension sanctioning order of the State Scheme has been issued only in the light of Ext.P-1 jail certificate, it only to be held that the State authorities were fully satisfied about the quality of Ext.P-1 jail certificate as a valid piece of primary evidence to certify the fact that the petitioner's husband had suffered jail imprisonment between the period from 10.12.1921 upto 27.11.1924. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P-2 receipt dated 16.2.1973 issued by the Superintendent, Central jail, Bellary, which would show that her husband had paid fee of Rs.2/- to that authority for issuance of Ext.P-1 certificate. It is also referred to in Exts.P-4 and P-7 that the District Collector has reported that in view of long lapse of time, the Superintendent of Central Jail, Bellary, has stated that the records relating to the period from 10.12.1921 to 27.11.1924 (period of imprisonment covered by Ext.P-1 jail certificate) are no longer available with that authority as it has been destroyed. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the abovesaid factual averments stated by the 2nd respondent State Government and the 5th respondent District Collector. The 1st respondent Union Government has no case that any of the factual averments in Exts.P-4 or P-7 or facts in the report of the 5th respondent District Collector referred to W.A No.1109 of 2019 5 therein in any manner incorrect or wrong. In these circumstances, it is only to be held that Ext.P-1 dated 20.2.1973 is a valid piece of primary evidentiary material, which was relied on by the State authorities for issuing Ext.P-3 pension sanctioning order dated 28.2.1974 under the State scheme and that the respondent State authorities were fully convinced as on the date of issuance of Ext.P-3 dated 28.2.1974 that the original of Ext.P-1 jail certificate dated 20.2.1973 issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bellary, would prove the case of the petitioner's husband that he had suffered imprisonment for the abovesaid period on account of his participation in the freedom movement as aforestated. The fact finding was duly reached by the respondent State authorities on 28.2.1974 based on their satisfaction about the standard of proof insisted for such a primary piece of evidentiary material. Now long years have elapsed after the issuance of Exts.P-1, P-2 and P-3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Bellary, has reported to the District Collector in the year 2006 that the original records in relation to the issuance of Ext.P-1 are no longer available. The respondent State authorities including respondents 2 and 5 have also gone through the original of Ext.P-1, both at the time of issuance of Ext.P-3 as well as issuance of Exts.P-4 and P-7. It is also asserted by the 2nd respondent State Government in the penultimate paragraph of Ext.P-7 that the petitioner had even filed an affidavit dated 3.1.2010 that she is still having the original of Ext.P-1 jail certificate and other relevant documents. By the lapse of time the records in relation to the issuance of Ext.P-1 are now no longer available with the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bellary, as it has been destroyed. Therefore, merely because the corroborating materials in relation to Ext.P-1 certificate are no longer available with the authorities concerned, is no ground to overrule the considered fact finding made by the 2nd respondent State Government and the 5th respondent W.A No.1109 of 2019 6 District Collector that Ext.P-1 is a valid and relevant piece of primary evidentiary material to show that the petitioner's husband was imprisoned in the Central Jail, Bellary, for the period from 10.12.1921 to 27.11.1924. In Ext.P-1 certificate itself it is stated that the petitioner's husband Abdul Khadr was a convict and political sufferer. Therefore, the ground of rejection stated in the impugned Ext.P-8 rejection order that Ext.P-1 is not a valid piece of primary evidentiary material by overruling the considered fact finding made by the respondent State authorities, is unreasonable and improper in the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. Yet another objection now raised in clause (i) of para 6 of Ext.P-8 is that the petitioner's husband was charge sheeted for offences under Secs.143, 149 and 379 of the I.P.C. and ordinarily such offences are to run concurrently and that therefore the version of the petitioner that the petitioner's husband was imposed with the sentence of three years' imprisonment as referred in Ext.P-1 is not proper, etc. is also incorrect. True that ordinarily in offences as in Secs.143, 149 and 379 of the I.P.C., the sentence may be ordered to run concurrently, at the discretion of the sentencing trial court. But it has to be remembered that the petitioner's husband was charged with such offences only on account of his participation in the Khilafat movement, which was part of the national freedom struggle in the year 1921 and in such a case, it is only very highly likely that the trial court would have taken a firm and unsympathetic view in the matter and would not have been prepared to exercise its discretion to order the running of those sentences concurrently and would have ordered that some of the sentences have to run consecutively and not concurrently. It is clearly stated in Ext.P-1 jail certificate that the petitioner's husband was imposed with a sentence of six years' imprisonment. But that he had to actually W.A No.1109 of 2019 7 undergo imprisonment only for a period of 13 days short of 3 years, in view of the remission that the State had subsequently ordered as per G.O.No.777 Public dated 30.10.1924 as referred in Exts.P-1 and Ext.P7. Therefore, the said opinion of the 1st respondent Union Government is only based on surmises and is not tenable. 10. Khilafat movement has been recognised as an eligible movement in the national freedom struggle for grant of SSS Pension. Following discussion has been given regarding Khilafat Movement, in Serial No.6 of Anx. 18 of the Central Scheme:- “6. Khilafat Movement. It was a campaign in defence of the Caliph of Turkey. After the armistice in 1918 it was feared that the Caliph would be deprived of his powers. Distressed at this prospect, the Muslims of India marshalled all their resources to impress on the British Government that the continued existence of the Caliphate (Khilafat) as a temporal no less than spiritual institution was the very essence of their faith. The peace terms (Treaty of Sevres, August 1920) crippled the power of Turkey and the deepest religious feelings of the Muslims were outraged. As a result there was a considerable unrest and dissatisfaction in India also. A campaign in defence of the Caliph was launched under the leadership of Shaukat Ali, Muhammad Ali and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. In 1920 the Indian National Congress supported the Muslims’ contention and under the guidance of Mahatma Gandhi, a nonviolent non-cooperation campaign was launched. Gandhi’s suspension of the non-cooperation movement on account of the Chauri Chaura incident, and his arrest in March 1922 weakened the Khilafat movement. It was further undermined when Mustafa Kamal Ataturk drove the Greeks from western Asia Minor in 1922 and deposed the Turkish Caliph in the same year; it finally collapsed when he abolished the Caliphate altogether in 1924.” The incidents in connection with the Khilafat movement which happened in the erstwhile Malabar district, are graphically detailed out in authoritative book, “The History of Freedom Movement in Kerala” Vol.III, General Editor S.Raimon, Director (Archives), Government of Kerala, prepared by the State Archives Department of the Government of Kerala, published in 2006 by the State Archives Department of the W.A No.1109 of 2019 8 ## Government of Kerala. It will be profitably to refer to pages 292 to 297 thereof, which read as follows: “.........Congress was sympathetic to the Khilafat cause. Ali brothers, leaders of the Khilafat movement joined hands with the Indian National Congress and started the movement for Swaraj and Khilafat. Khilafat committees were also formed at various places: Tenant farmers were the main recruits to the khilafat and Non-co-operation movement. The unity of the people against the British Government and the landlords frightened the district administration. The District Collector served a notice to K.Madhavan Nair and U.Gopala Menon, Congress secretaries alleging that through propaganda they had created disaffection towards the British Government and the jenmis. The effort of the Congress to unite the Hindus and Muslims for a common cause was viewed as an attempt to create communal animosity. The Congress and Khilafat Committees emphasized the need for non-violent agitation. KPCC invited Yakub Hassan, Khilafat leader of the Madras presidency to tour the district and to propagate the message of the agitation among the people. But the Government issued prohibitory orders on public meetings. All propaganda meetings organised by the Congress Committees were cancelled. The provocative measures of the Government aroused indignation and helped to increase anti-Governmen feelings. K.Madhavan Nair. Yakub Hassan, P.Moideen Koya and U.Gopala Menon were arrested and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The arrest and imprisonment of leaders gave wide publicity to the movement. The Congress and Khilafat volunteers were threatened with prosecution. The landlords utilised the tense atmosphere to evict the tenants from their holdings. The Congress support to the evicted Muslim tenants was interpreted as an attempt to arouse Muslim communal feelings to make the non-co-operation movement a success. The Pukkottur Conference of the Kudiyan Sangham in 1921, discussed both tenancy and Khilafat issues. Such conferences annoyed the district administration. Freedom of association was restricted by prohibiting public meetings. Eviction and enhancement of rent became the order of the day. There was a sea change in the attitude of the Mappila tenants also. Instead of resorting to direct violent action, the tenants through the Kudiyan Sangham tried to solve their problems by resorting to collective bargaining. But the Government and landlords shut the doors for an amicable settlement. The question of Khilafat added yet another dimension to the anti-colonial feeling of the Muslims. The Government was hostile and suspicious of the motives of the Muslims. The administration decided to suppress the movement by using force. Meanwhile the Police made an attempt to arrest Vadakkeveettil Muhammad, the Secretary of the Pukkotur branch of the Khilafat Committee as a suspect in a theft case, on 28 July, 1921. It was alleged that he had stolen a rifle from Pukkotur Kovilakam, a branch of Nilambur Kovilakam. The Nilambur Kovilakam owned more than half of the agricultural land in the Pukkotur village. Most of the farmers were tenants of the Kovilakam. Muhammad, the suspect had W.A No.1109 of 2019 9 been formerly in the service of the Kovilakam for a few years. Tenancy movement was very strong in Pukkotur and Muhammad was its leader. The theft case was a fabricated one to insult Muhammd, who was the organiser of the Pukkotur Kudiyan Conference in January 1921. The police raided his house, but he managed to escape. The Muslims and tenant farmers organized a march to the Kovilakam on 31 July under the leadership of Kalathil Muhammad, and ransacked the Kovilakam. Tension prevailed in Pukkotur, Manjeri and Nilambur. The Tampuran of the Kovilakam was forced to pay Rs. 350/- to Muhammad as arrears of his salary. The next day the police arrived at Nilambur to arrest Muhammad. But the mob prevented his arrest and the police party returned to Manjeri without taking the accused in custody. The authority of the district administration was at stake. Malabar Rebellion The growing solidarity of the Muslims and the Congress workers gave sleepless nights to the district administration. Arrest warrants were served to P. Narayana Menon, Secretary of the Eranad Taluk Congress Committee. K. Abdu Haji and Karadan Moideenkutty Haji, members of the Khilafat Committee. The object was to curb the activities of the Congress and Khilafat in Malabar. Special police and army were kept as reserve to terrorise the agitators. The Government had prevented the leaders from visiting Pukkotur and Nilambur. Offices of the Congress and the Khilafat committees and the houses of the leaders were raided. Ali Musaliar was one of the popular religious teachers of the Muslims in Eranad and Walluvanad. He was the source of strength to the Khilafat agitators. The police had suspected that Vadakkeveettil Muhammad was being protected by the Musaliar. The Government decided to arrest Ali Musaliar first. A police party accompanied by the District Collector and Superintendent of Police reached Tirurangadi to arrest him. They conducted a search in the Khilafat committee office and in the nearby mosque. The police entered the Kizhakkeppally and arrested three persons. Houses of the Khilafat leaders were raided and most of them were arrested. Innocent people were harassed and detained at the police stations. The entry of the police into the mosque in full uniform, violated the sanctity of the mosque and the police action aroused religious passions of the Muslims. The Khilafat leaders could not control their followers effectively. The entry of the police into the Tirurangadi mosque and the violation of its sanctity spread in the taluk like wild fire. Muslims from the nearby Tirur and Kottakkal flocked to Tirurangadi to enquire into the incident. Ali Musaliar pacified them and asked them to return to their houses. But the police arrested a few of them and locked them up in the police station. Ali Musaliar accompanied by his followers reached police station to get the arrested persons released from the station lockup. The police, without any provocation opened fire at the mob. Hundreds of them were shot dead. The Congress leaders rushed to Pukkotur, a strong hold of the rebels, to avert an open clash between the army and the tenants. M.P.Narayana Menon, Muhammad Abdur Rahman and Moideenkutty Haji. leaders of the movement persuaded the people to eschew violence. Unfortunately an unruly mob attakked the police party on 26 August. In the 'battle' that ensued, about three hundred people were killed and the W.A No.1109 of 2019 10 army was forced to retreat from Pukkotur. Rioting spread to neighbouring villages. The rail road traffic was cut off. Eranad and Walluvanad were isolated from the rest of Malabar. Government offices were attacked and records were burnt. The administration was paralysed and anarchy reigned supreme. The Government had prevented the Congress and Khilafat leaders from visiting the riot-hit areas. The rioters adopted guerilla warfare and the hilly tracts of South Malabar were suitable for adopting such a strategy. At this stage the rebellion became anti-British in character and no harm was done either to the jenmis or to the Hindus. Martial law was declared on 29 August 1921. Eranad, Ponnani Calicut, Walluvanad and Wayanad were brought under this law. More forces, including the Gurkha regiment was rushed to Malappuram and Tirurangadi. On the early morning of 31 August, Tirurangadi mosque was seized by the forces after a fierce battle. When the ammunitions were exhausted, the Muslims came out from their hiding places and fought with knives and spears. Such a resistance with crude weapons lasted only for a few hours. The Khilafat volunteers and their leader Ali Musalian surrendered. The rebellion subsided for the time being. The ruthless oppression of the Government again sowed the seeds of disgust and resulted in the organization of riots by local leaders in isolated regions. Instead of direct confrontation the rebel gangs adopted the technique of 'hit and run.' Soldiers of the Gurkha rifles were brought to combat the guerilla warfare and they were ordered to move to the interior regions. The rebel attack on the Gurkha rifles stationed at Pandikkad on 14 November, ended in the death of about two hundred people. They were led by Chembrasseni Thangal and Kunjahammad Haji. At this stage the mutineers clashed with the landlords. The informants to the Police both Hindus and Muslims, were attacked and killed. Their properties were looted. This wanton act of the rebels alienated them from the people who were sympathetic to their cause. The police search for the rebels continued and the rebels were cruelly punished. Their houses were burnt, women were molested and even children were not spared. Realising the futility of their hostility, the number of rebels surrendering to the police increased day by day. By the beginning of the year 1922 about 45,000 rebels were taken into police custody and about 10,000 were killed in the police action. Poverty and the desire to live prompted the Muslims of Malabar so resist the alien rule and its stooges, the jenmis. As members of the minority community and tenant farmers, they had joined the national movement to get their grievances redressed through collective bargaining and negotiated settlements. They saw in the non cooperation and Khilafat movement an opportunity to end the oppressive British rule and to attain swaraj, by practising non-violent methods of agitation. The Government policy was to terrorise and emasculate the Muslim rebels. In the 1921 movement when the atrocities of the police and district administration exceeded all limits, the Muslims gave up non-violence and resorted to the practice of becoming chaver and threw up their lives. The district administration had succeeded in twisting the movement of 1921, a movement against the alien rule, into HinduMuslim riot and kept records to establish the view W.A No.1109 of 2019 11 that the rebellion was the handiwork of Congress- movement Khilafat workers. The year 1921 was a great divide in the struggle for independence in Malabar. The leaders of the Indian National Congress could not give a satisfactory explanation to the violent end of the Khilafat and non-cooperation movement. It also provided an opportunity for the police and district administration to suppress all anti-Government movements on the pretext of keeping law and order. The annual meeting of the KPCC was held at Palghat in 1923. Sarojini Naidu, C. Rajagopalachari, Devadas Gandhi, the aged mother of Ali brothers and K.M. Panikkar attended the conference. The main concern of the Congress was to revive the tradition of the Hindu-Muslim friendship. A notable feature of the conference was its emphasis on Gandhian Programme of national reconstruction. It had been decided to popularise Khadar, Hindi and interdining among the people. Funds were collected for the publication of two Malayalam National dailies, Mathrubhumi (1923) and Al-Amin (1924).” 11. Lastly, the objection stated in the concluding portion of para 6 of Ext.P-8 is that the respondent State authorities have ignored the fact that claimant's late husband was charge-sheeted and convicted among other Sections under Sec.379 of the I.P.C., which is a punishment for theft and therefore, the recommendation of the State Government is not acceptable, etc. True that the offence charged against the petitioner's husband as shown in Ext.P-1 as well as other documents produced in these proceedings is that he was convicted for the offences under Secs.143, 149 and 379 of the I.P.C. The respondent State authorities were fully convinced about the fact that the petitioner's husband had suffered imprisonment referred to in Ext.P-1 as a political sufferer, as certified in Ext.P-1. The said fact finding arrived at by the respondent State authorities at the time of issuance of Ext.P-3 order 28.2.1974 is on the basis of their satisfaction of the relevant materials as readily available then and it has to be remembered that some of the participants of the Khilafat movement, which occurred in the year 1921, were even charge sheeted for offences like under Sec. 378 (theft, arson etc.) by the British Police authorities concerned. It is a matter of historical record that the events that took place in the present district of Malappuram as part of the W.A No.1109 of 2019 12 Khilafat movement in the year 1921 were in the nature of a great insurrection and in order to quell and contain such insurrectionary movement, the colonial Police authorities concerned would have charged sheeted the participants even for offences for theft, arson etc. This crucial aspect of the matter has been taken judicial cognizance by a Full Bench of this Court in the judgment **UOI v. Peter Devassia** , reported in 2003 (1) KLJ 467 = 2003 (1) KLT 248, para 14, which reads as follows: “14. During the days of the English, false cases were foisted against those who actively participated in the freedom movement. The case of a person who was falsely implicated in a case and imprisoned cannot be at a level lower than that in which the charge was proved. The suffering of the innocent is severer than that of the person who is ultimately found to be guilty.” Therefore, the said objection raised by the respondent Union Government is not tenable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, more particularly in the light of the clear certification in Ext.P-1 that the petitioner's husband had suffered conviction as a political sufferer. Therefore, the conclusive fact finding made by the respondent State authorities at the time of issuance of Ext.P-3 order in 28.2.1974 that Ext.P-1 jail certificate dated 20.2.1973 satisfies the standard of proof for a relevant piece of primary evidentiary material, cannot be diluted and whittled down merely on account of the long passage of time, by which the corroborating materials and records are not available. In the light of these facts and circumstances, this Court would hold that the said considered view of the respondent State authorities that Ext.P-1 is a relevant piece of primary evidentiary material even for the purpose of grant of pension under the Central scheme, is reasonable and proper assessment of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the contra opinion of the respondent Union Government is not reasonable and proper. In this view of the matter, the impugned rejection orders at Exts. P-5 and P-8 will stand set aside. Accordingly, it is ordered that the W.A No.1109 of 2019 13 petitioner is eligible and entitled for the grant of freedom fighter's family dependent pension under the Central scheme from the date of receipt of her application (6.7.2005), which is referred to in Ext.P-4. The competent authority of the 1st respondent Union Government shall grant the freedom fighter's family dependent pension under the Central scheme as well as its arrears to the petitioner from 15.8.2005, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the 1st respondent Union Government at the cost of the petitioner. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.” 6. Heard learned counsel for appellants Sri.Jaisankar V. Nair, learned counsel Sri.Praveen K. Joy for the writ petitioner/1st respondent, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Tek Chand for State of Kerala and its officials and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 7. In fact the learned Single Judge has entered the findings extracted above taking into account the history of the movement in question, which was a part of the freedom struggle, and directions were issued on the basis of the relevant materials and the records available in the instant case. It is clear from the documents produced and the pleadings put forth by the parties that there is a clear certification in Exhibit P1 that petitioner's husband had suffered conviction as a political suffering. It is also clear and evident from the conclusive fact finding by the State Authorities at the time of placing Ext.P3 order of sanctioning pension dated 28th February, 1974, wherein it is stated W.A No.1109 of 2019 14 that Ext.P1 jail certificate dated 20.1.1973 satisfies the standard of proof for the relevant piece of primary evidentiary material. The said finding of the State Government cannot be diluted or interfered by the Government of India in order to decline the pension to the writ petitioner/1st respondent. 8. To put it short, we are of the clear and considered opinion that it was after taking into account the whole gamut of the issue that the learned Single Judge has rendered the findings. In sum and substance, the appellants have failed to make out any case of jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities justifying our interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Needless to say, writ appeal fails, accordingly, it is dismissed. **Sd/-** **S.MANIKUMAR** **CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/-** **SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE** smv