Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs Thalyan Veettil Lakshmi Amma
Author: C.K. Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAYOF OCTOBER 2014/5TH KARTHIKA, 1936
R.P.No.210 of 2014 (C)
---------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2011 IN WP(C) 15021/2011 .
...
REVIEW PETITIONER'S/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARYTO GOVERNMDNT,
FREEDOM FIGHTERS DIVISION,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
LOK NAYAK BHAVAN,NEW DELHI - 110 001.
BY ADV.SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY,CGC
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
--------------------------------------------------------------
THALYAN VEETTIL LAKSHMI AMMA,
W/O.LATE KOYADAN KUNDAN NAMBIAR,
KANHILERI,CHRIKODE P.O.,
SREEKANDAPURAM,KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
pk
R.P.No.210 of 2014 (C)
-------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1:TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER NO.52/CC/K/138/2009-FF
(SZ)DATED 31.8.2010.
ANNEXURE A2:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.52/CC/K/52/2011-FF(SZ)
DATED 29.1.2014.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
pk
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------------
R.P No. 210 OF 2014
IN
W.P.(c) No. 15021 OF 2011
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014.
O R D E R
The respondents in the writ petition have filed this review petition on the premises that they are intending to cancel Annexure-A1 order sanctioning Dependant Family Pension to the respondent/writ petitioner. The Review petitioners rely on clause 2 of Annexure-A1 order which provides that, the proceedings is liable to be cancelled or modified without any notice, if it is found that it was sanctioned on the basis of mistaken ground or false information.
2. Issue agitated in the writ petition was only with respect to the date from which the petitioner is eligible to get the Dependant Family Pension. Exhibit P6 is the order sanctioning Dependant Family Pension to the writ petitioner (which is produced as Annexure-A1 along with this review petition). The said order had sanctioned Family Pension with effect from 19-02-2010, whereas the petitioner RP No.210/2014 -2- claimed that the pension ought to have been sanctioned from the date of receipt of the application onwards. This court after referring to the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. Radhamony (2005 (4) KLT 27) and Thambayi Amma V. Union of India (2011 (3) KLT 105) found that pension should be given from the date on which the original application is received by the competent authority. Contention raised on behalf of respondents in the writ petition was that there is no reason to grant pension from the date of the application because the pension was granted on the basis of "benefit of doubt". The said contention was negatived by this court finding that there is nothing indicated in Ext.P6 that the pension was granted without any clear proof on the basis of "benefit of doubt". This court found that merely because the 'imprisonment suffering' by the freedom fighter was not for the complete period of six months or because the Government have taken a lenient view in the matter, it cannot be said that the pension was sanctioned without RP No.210/2014 -3- clear evidence or on the basis of "benefit of doubt". Therefore it is held that the writ petitioner is entitled to receive the Family Pension with effect from 05-05-1998, the date on which the original application was received by the competent authority. The authorities were directed to make payment of arrears of pension within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the judgment.
3. It is revealed that the Review Petitioners have challenged the judgment in W.A No.1836/2013 which was filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay. On 17-02-2014 the writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn since the court permitted to withdraw the application to condone the delay. However the Division Bench observed that the withdrawal will be without prejudice to the right to seek remedy before the Single Judge, if so advised. There is evidence to the effect that the writ petitioner had filed Con. Case (c) No.1295/2013. The contempt of court case stands now referred to the Division Bench based on finding rendered by this court to the effect RP No.210/2014 -4- that, prima facie it is satisfied that the respondents therein have committed contempt of court.
4. Contention in the review petition is that Dependant Family Pension happened to be sanctioned on the basis of the report furnished by the State Government which was without proper verification. It is contended that the State Government have failed in making verification with respect to the original records and the judgment in C.C. No.15/1947 of Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba in order to arrive at a conclusion that the said case relates to the freedom movement namely "Kavumbai Movement". On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/writ petitioner contended that it is after considering all the relevant documents with respect to the criminal case that the Family Pension was sanctioned.
5. However, question whether the order sanctioning Dependant Family Pension is liable to be cancelled or revoked or as to whether the Family Pension was happened to be sanctioned on the basis of any mistaken ground or RP No.210/2014 -5- false information are not matters germane for consideration in this review petition. The review petitioners have no case that at the time of disposal of the writ petition they were prevented from taking any particular contention or from producing any relevant document. The review petitioners also do not have any case that there occurred any error apparent on the face of record while rendering the judgment with respect to any factual or legal aspects. The review petitioners have not produced any fresh materials or other evidence to show that the decision taken by this court with respect to the original application, is bad or unsustainable.
6. If the review petitioners is of the firm opinion that the pension sanctioning order is liable to be cancelled or modified invoking clause 2 of Annexure-A1 it is for them to take such a decision to the extent permissible and unsustainable under law. But merely because of the statement that the review petitioners are intending to take any such proceedings, the judgment cannot be reviewed. In RP No.210/2014 -6- other words the findings contained in the judgment need not be reviewed on the basis of such a ground.
7. Under the above mentioned circumstances I do not find any reason to review the judgment and hence the review petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE AMG True copy P.A. to Judge