Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M. UMADEVI ANTHERJENAM versus UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M. UMADEVI ANTHERJENAM v. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 14245 of 2006(U) [2007] RD-KL 14792 (2 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 14245 of 2006(U)

1. M. UMADEVI ANTHERJENAM,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

For Respondent :SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY, ADDL.CGSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :02/08/2007

O R D E R

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

W.P. (C). NO. 14245 OF 2006

Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2007.



J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to sanction and disburse Freedom Fighters' Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.

2. The petitioner is the widow of late M. Sankaran Namboodiri who was a prominent freedom fighter of Malabar. The application submitted by the petitioner under the relevant scheme is Exhibit P5. The scheme provides that the same has to be routed through the State Government with their recommendations. The petitioner has forwarded one copy directly to the Central Government also. In fact, the late husband of the petitioner was sanctioned pension under the State Pension Scheme as per Exhibit P3. Consequent on his death, the petitioner was granted the benefit as evidenced by Exhibit P4. The claim is based on the conviction suffered by the late husband of the petitioner and the said fact is supported by the extract of the Convict Register Exhibit P2. Apart from producing the same, there are certificates issued by prominent W.P.(C). 14245/06 2 freedom fighters namely K.P. Kannan and P. Raman Maniyani, which are evidenced by Exhibits P6 and P7. The Government of India has recognized Karivellur Struggle as part of freedom movement as per order dated 20.01.1998.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India. It is averred therein that the application has to be forwarded by the State Government along with their verification- cum-entitlement to pension report and then only the Government of India will be able to take a decision on the same. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to forward to the first respondent Exhibit P5 application submitted by the petitioner along with the annexures/documents and due recommendation, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, first respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a further period of two months thereafter. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

JUDGE.

smp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.