Kerala High Court · 2012

W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:4:-W.A. No. 382 of 2010:6. In this appeal, the widow of late freedom fighter byname one Pouleenju Achappan approached the learned SingleJudge aggrieved by the rejection of pension already granted by theCentral Government on the ground that there was no properNARC. According to her, the State Government though had notrecommended her case, the Central Government initially hadsanctioned the pension but later suspended the said order on theground that there was no proper NARC and she had sought forquashing of communication at Ext.P9. The learned Judge placingreliance on the endorsement given by the JFCM, Alappuzha opinedthat the said certificate issued by one of the three authorities, i.e.the Court, is a proper NARC therefore, the said document itself willamount to valid NARC. Having regard to the said certificate, thelearned Judge proceeded to hold that the second condition, i.e.CPC produced by the writ petitioner, was acceptable and thereforeproceeded to quash Ext.P9 communication of suspension ofsanction of pension. Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India isbefore us contending that NARC has to be issued by the State aftercomplying with the procedure laid down under the various W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:5:-Circulars, only after a detailed enquiry. According to him, NARChas to be given by the State and no other authority.W.A. No. 227 of 2011:7. This appeal is also filed by the Union of Indiaaggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In thiscase the claimant was the wife of the freedom fighter, butpertaining to General Freedom Struggle. The endorsement ofimprisonment was obtained from JFCM, Kollam claiming to be theNARC. The State Government did not recommend the case of theapplicant. Central Government also rejected on the ground thatthere is no acceptable documentary evidence. A specificcontention taken by the appellant was that the details pertainingto the case in which imprisonment suffered by the freedom fighterwere not at all mentioned at Column No.11 of the application(Annexure A1). Therefore, it was an incomplete application. Sofar as the respondent/petitioner, according to the learned SeniorCounsel Mr.N.Darmadan, this is the fourth time the matter isbefore the Courts and the dependents of freedom fighter cannot bemade to approach the Court again and again in spite of producingall the relevant documents. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:6:-W.P.(C) No. 258 of 2011:8. The claim for pension as a freedom fighter inPunnapra-Vayalar movement by the applicant was as anunder-trial imprisonment between November 1946 and June 1947.The document claimed as NARC is the certificate or endorsementissued by the Superintendent of Sub Jail, Alappuzha in PENo.7/1122 M.E. of Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. The StateGovernment did not recommend the case of the petitioner.Central Government also rejected the claim on the ground that novalid NARC was issued by the State and Co-prisoner Certificateissued by Mr.P.A.Solomon was not acceptable. The learnedcounsel for the respondent -Union of India contends that there isdifference with regard to period of imprisonment between theapplication and the Co-prisoner's Certificate by Mr.Solomon. W.P.(C) No. 24196 of 2008:9. The writ petitioner applicant is the wife of freedomfighter by name Mr.P.Damodaran pertaining to Punnapra-Vayalarstruggle. The claim is underground suffering for more than sevenmonths to evade arrest in PE No.7/1122 M.E. Along with PKCcertificate, endorsement from Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:7:-Alappuzha was submitted. In this case State did not recommendthe sanction of Pension. Aggrieved by the said negative action onthe part of the State Government, the petitioner is before us.According to the respondent State, there is no period ofunderground mentioned in the PKC certificate and the saidcertificate is not in the prescribed form.W.P.(C) No. 33960 of 2008:10. In this case the claim for pension is by dependentas family pension. It is a case of underground in PENo.7/1122M.E. on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzhabetween October 1946 and August 1947. Nature of NARC is theendorsement issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzhaand PKC by one Mr.S.Kumaran. The State Governmentrecommended the case of the petitioner as per directions of thisCourt, but the Central Government rejected for want of valid NARCby the State Government and PKC was not acceptable. This isunder challenge in this writ petition.W.P.(C) No. 30084 of 2008:11. The applicant petitioner claims freedom fighter’spension for participation in the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement as W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:8:-having undergone underground between November 1946 toAugust 1947 in PE No.7/1122M.E. State Government did notrecommend sanction of pension. Central Government rejectedthe claim for want of valid NARC by rejecting the endorsementgiven by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. PKCs issued byMr.Sukumaran and Mr.T.F.Yohannan are not acceptable to them.W.P.(C) No. 9230 of 2008:12. The writ petitioner/applicant claims to be a freedomfighter(Punnapra-Vayalar) in PE No.7/1122 M.E. on the file ofSpecial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. The reason for claim isunderground suffering from October 1946 to June 1947. StateGovernment did not recommend and the Central Governmentrejected for want of valid NARC and PKCs issued by Sri.IttiyathiVasudevan, Sri.Konanjalickal Sukumaran and Sri.S.Kumaran,Ex.M.P. were doubted. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner isbefore us. W.P.(C) No. 34532 of 2008:13. The claim of pension pertains to Punnapra-Vayalarmovement with reference to PE No.7/1122 M.E. claimingunderground suffering between 07.03.1122 and 06.11.1122 M.E. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:9:-Nature of NARC is the endorsement by Chief Judicial Magistrate,Alappuzha and PKC by one Mr.H.K.Chakrapani. Though the StateGovernment recommended as per Ext.P5, Central Governmentrejected for want of valid NARC and PKC was not acceptable.Aggrieved by the said rejection the petitioner is before us. W.P.(C) No. 4508 of 2008:14. The applicant is the dependent of late K.K.Natarajanwho said to have suffered underground between 09.01.1947 to14.08.1947 in Quit India Movement. The endorsement fromJudicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur in CC No. 9/1947 wasproduced as NARC and PKCs were issued by one Mr.OontamanAyyappan and Kutty Gangadharan. State Government did notrecommend the case of the applicant and the same came to berejected by the Central Government as per Ext.P15. Aggrieved bythe same, the writ petitioner is before us along with true copy ofthe review petition submitted on 06.10.2007.W.P.(C) No. 12043 of 2010:15. The writ petitioner is the dependent wife ofA.Chellappan, who underwent imprisonment in PE No.7/1122 M.E.from November 1946 to August 1947. The endorsement of the W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:10:-Judicial First Class Magistrate Court was not accepted as validNARC. In this case though State Government recommended,Central Government rejected the claim vide letter dated10.11.2009 for want of valid NARC and credentials of certificateissued by the Co-prisoner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioneris before us. W.P.(C) No. 8622 of 2010:16. The writ petitioner has approached the concernedauthorities for sanction of pension under SSSP Scheme claiming tobe a sufferer as under trial prisoner in PE No.7/1122 M.E. fromJanuary 1947 to September 1947. On an earlier occasion also heapproached the Court, when the claim was rejected in WP(C) No.29638 of 2005, and again the matter was examined. StateGovernment recommended for grant of pension but the CentralGovernment rejected the claim on 17.11.2009. According to thepetitioner, there are no valid grounds for the rejection of theclaim. In this case also NARC according to the petitioner is theendorsement of Superintendent of Sub Jail, Alappuzha(Ext.P4) andalso the certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police,Alappuzha as per Ext.P5. The petitioner relies on CPC given by W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:11:-one Mr.P.A. Solomon as per Ext.P3. The contention of therespondent Union of India is, there is no proper NARC ascontemplated under Column No.9 of the Scheme and even the CPCissued by Mr.Solomon cannot be taken into consideration on theground that it was not acceptable as the Co-prisoner may not beable to give the particulars so accurately with precession. W.P.(C) No. 8143 of 2010:17. The writ petitioner claims to be a sufferer as undertrial prisoner pertaining to PE No.7/1122 M.E. on the file of SpecialMagistrate Court, Alappuzha pertaining to movement of Punnapra-Vayalar. The period of imprisonment claimed is from November1946 to May 1947. Documents relied upon by the writ petitionerare NARC, said to have been issued by the District Superintendentof Police, Alappuzha and CPC by Mr.P.A.Solomon. Though theState Government recommended in pursuance of the directionsissued in WP(C) No. 15250 of 2005, later the Central Governmentrejected the claim of the petitioner for want of valid NARC andunacceptable CPC. W.P.(C) No. 5358 of 2010:18. This also pertains to Punnapra-Vayalar movement W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:12:-and the writ petitioner is the freedom fighter who claims to haveundergone imprisonment between November 1946 and November1947 pertaining to PE No.7/1122 M.E. The writ petitioner reliesupon two documents; NARC issued by the Superintendent, ofSpecial Sub Jail, Alappuzha and CPC by one Mr.P.A.Solomon.State Government recommended the case of the petitioner forgrant of pension, however, Central Government rejected the samefor want of valid NARC by the State Government in accordancewith the Scheme and so also unacceptable CPC.W.P.(C) No. 1857 of 2010:19. The claimant is the wife of alleged freedom fighterwho had participated in the movement of Punnapra-Vayalar.According to the claimant, the deceased freedom fighter wasdeclared as absconder who alleged to have gone undergroundpertaining to PE No.8/1122 M.E. from 01.11.1946 to 09.12.1947.The Central Government has rejected the claim for want of validNARC and unacceptable PKC issued by Mr.V.K. Viswanathan,though the State Government has recommended sanctioning ofpension. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:13:-W.P.(C) No. 56 of 2010:20. This writ petitioner approached this Court for a writof mandamus claiming to be a participant in the movement ofTravancore Freedom movement having undergone undergroundbetween 17.09.1946 and 15.09.1947 to evade arrest in CCNo.59/1947. State Government rejected the application videorder at Ext.P16 on the ground that PKC was not acceptable andNARC was not in order as per the requirement. W.P.(C) No. 10665 of 2010:21. The writ petitioner is the applicant for pensionpertaining to Punnapra-Vayalar movement in PE No.7/1122 M.E.on the file of Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. He claimssuffering as under trial imprisonment between November 1946 andMay 1947. Two documents were produced along with theapplication. NARC issued by the Superintendent of Sub Jail,Alappuzha and CPC by one Mr.P.A. Solomon. Though StateGovernment recommended subsequent to the directions in W.P.(C)No.18348 of 2005, Central Government rejected the claim on theground that no valid NARC was produced and there is no validCPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:14:-W.P.(C) No. 10664 of 2010:22. The main grievance of the petitioner is that on anearlier occasion, along with the application no documents could beproduced and later, along with representation at Ext.P4, Ext.P5NARC from Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha and Ext.P6affidavit such documents are produced. Till the date of filing ofthe writ petition, the application was not considered therefore shehas sought for a direction to the State Authorities to consider theapplication and recommend the same to the Central Government.However, as per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2ndrespondent State, we note as per paragraphs 6 and 7 that theCertificate issued from Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,Alappuzha was not accepted as the records pertaining to PENo.7/1122 M.E. were not available and there is no material toshow how the freedom fighter was connected with PE No.7/1122.Similarly, pertaining to the Certificate issued byMr.H.K.Chakrapani, it is rejected as unacceptable on ground thatthe Certificate of Mr.Chakrapani alone is insufficient for verifyingthe genuineness of the claim of the applicant. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:15:-W.P.(C) No. 16503 of 2010:23. The claim of the petitioner is, he was a freedomfighter having participated in Punnapara-Vayalar struggle andsuffered underground for a period of six months between29.10.1946 and 10.12.1947. The documents relied upon by himare NARC from Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha in PENo.8/1122 M.E. on the files of Special Magistrate Court,Alappuzha. He also produced Certificate issued by Superintendentof Police, Alappuzha as per Ext.P5. So far as the secondaryevidence, he relies upon PKC issued by one Mr.H.K. Chakrapani asper Ext.P3. Though the petitioner has approached this Courtcontending that in spite of the submission of the application, noorder came to be passed. From the counter affidavit filed by theState we note that the application is already considered andrejected on 22.01.2010. According to the State, the two NARCsproduced by the petitioner are not acceptable as they are not inaccordance with Column No.9 of SSS Pension Scheme. Similarlydoubts were with regard to PKC issued by Mr.Chakrapani. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:16:-W.P.(C) No. 15287 of 2010:24. The writ petitioner is the wife of alleged freedomfighter who said to have participated in Punnapra-Vayalar struggleand went underground between October 1946 and July 1947 in PENo.7/1122 M.E. He relies upon the endorsement issued by ChiefJudicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha and PKCs by one Mr.H.K.Chakarapani and Sri.Kunjan Sukumaran. Though StateGovernment recommended the claim of the petitioner for SSSPension, Central Government rejected the same for want of validNARC and so also unacceptable PKCs.W.P.(C) No. 21484 of 2010:25. The writ petitioner is one Smt.Kamala, wife of afreedom fighter pertaining to Punnapra-Vayalar struggle in PENo.7/1122 M.E. on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Alappuzha. Said freedom fighter alleged to have undergonesuffering between October 1946 and August 1947. The documentsrelief upon are alleged NARC issued by the Chief JudicialMagistrate Court, Alappuzha and PKCs issued bySri.H.K.Chakrapani and Sri.Narayanan Ramankutty. In this caseState Government forwarded the verification report without W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:17:-recommending the case of the petitioner and Central Governmentalso rejected the claim for want of valid NARC and unacceptablePKCs.W.P.(C) No. 29144 of 2010:26. I.A. No.17566 of 2010 is filed to bring the LegalRepresentatives of the petitioner on record, as she is no more.Since the learned counsel for the respondent has no objection, thesame is allowed. 27. In this case wife of the freedom fighter approachedthis Court claiming SSS Pension pertaining to Punnapra-Vayalarstruggle. According to the petitioners, Mr.P.K.Kunjunni underwentunderground pertaining to PE No.7/1122 M.E. between October1946 and June 1947. Documents relied upon by the petitionersare; NARC issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzhaand PKC issued by Mr.Kunjan Sukumaran and Mr.H.K.Chakrapani.Though State Government recommended in the light of earlierjudgment dated 06.10.2008, they rejected the claim on13.03.2009 for want of valid NARC and unacceptable PKCcertificates. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:18:-W.P.(C) No. 35911 of 2010:28. The petitioner is the wife of freedom fighterpertaining to Punnapra-Vayalar movement pertaining to caseNo.MC.5/1122 M.E. of then Divisional First class Magistrate Court,Alappuzha. Suffering alleged is under trial imprisonment between14.11.1946 and 16.08.1947. Documents relied upon are,Certificate from District Superintendent of Police as NARC andPKCs by Sri.Kunjan Sukumaran, Sri.V.K.Karunakaran and Sri.H.K.Chakrapani. State Government did not recommend the case ofthe petitioner. Central Government also rejected the claim forwant of valid NARC and also on the ground of PKCs produced werenot acceptable.W.P.(C) No. 9280 of 2010:29. This case is filed by the wife of a freedom fighterpertaining to Punnapra-Vayalar. Suffering claimed isimprisonment between November 1946 and May 1947 pertainingto PE No.7/1122 M.E. on the file of Special Magistrate, Alappuzha.Documents produced are endorsement from Superintendent of SubJail, Alappuzha and CPC by one Mr.P.A. Solomon. Though StateGovernment recommended in the light of the directions of this W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:19:-Court in an earlier writ petition, Central Government rejected theclaim for want of valid NARC and also on the ground that CPC wasnot acceptable as the certifier was not an eligible certifier. W.P.(C) No. 4777 of 2010:30. This case is filed by the wife of a freedom fighterpertaining to Punnapra-Vayalar. Suffering claimed isimprisonment between November 1946 and November 1947pertaining to PE No.7/1122 M.E. on the file of Special MagistrateCourt, Alappuzha. The documents relied are endorsement issuedby Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha and also endorsement bythe Court concerned. One Mr.P.A. Solomon has issued CPC.State Government recommended the case in the light ofdirections of this Court on earlier occasion, however, CentralGovernment rejected the same for want of valid NARC and on theground that the Certifier was not an eligible one. W.P.(C) No. 10169 of 2010:31. The claimant in this case is the widow of a freedomfighter who said to have participated in Punnapra-Vayalarmovement in PE No.7/1122 M.E. on the file of Special MagistrateCourt, Alappuzha. The claim of suffering is underground between W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:20:-08.03.1122 and 10.10.1122 M.E. Documents relied upon areendorsement issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Alappuzha as NARC and PKC by Mr.H.K.Chakrapani. StateGovernment recommended the claim in pursuance of earlierjudgment of this Court, however, Central Government rejected thesame for want of valid NARC and also on the ground that PKC wasnot acceptable.W.P.(C) No. 3385 of 2010:32. In this case the claimant is the spouse of a freedomfighter who alleged to have participated in Punnapra-Vayalarmovement in PE No.7/1122 M.E. on the file of Special MagistrateCourt, Alappuzha and suffered underground between October 1946and August 1947. Documents produced are NARC from ChiefJudicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha as Ext.P4 and PKCs byMr.Kunjan Sukumaran, Sri.Narayanan Ramankutty and Sri.H.K.Chakrapani. State Government duly recommended the claim ofthe petitioner, but Central Government rejected for want of validNARC and also unacceptable PKCs.W.P.(C) No. 12052 of 2010:33. This case is filed by the wife of alleged freedom W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:21:-fighter who said to have participated in Punnapra-Vayalarmovement. Suffering claimed is imprisonment between05.12.1946 and 09.11.1947 in PE No.7/1122 M.E. on the file ofSpecial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. Documents produced areendorsement of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha andalso endorsement by Superintendent, Sub Jail, Alappuzha as perExt.P7. CPC is issued by one Mr.P.A. Solomon as per Ext.P5.Though State Government recommended the case in pursuance ofthe directions at Ext.P6, Central Government rejected the claimfor want of valid NARC and CPC is unacceptable.W.P.(C) No. 7157 of 2010:34. The petitioner is the freedom fighter alleged to haveparticipated in Punnapra-Vayalar movement and undergonesuffering of imprisonment between 30.10.1946 and 10.08.1947pertaining to PE No.8/1122 M.E. NARC is issued by theSuperintendent of Sub Jail, Alappuzha and CPCs are issued byMr.V.K.Viswanathan and Mr.P.A. solomon. Though StateGovernment recommended the case of the petitioner, CentralGovernment rejected the same as per Ext.P21 for want of valid W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:22:-NARC and that CPCs issued by concerned persons as notacceptable.W.P.(C) No. 959 of 2010:35. The claimant one Smt.Kalyani Kittan, is said to bethe wife of a freedom fighter who participated in Travancore StateCongress freedom struggle. Suffering is claimed as undergroundfrom October 1938 to September 1939. State Government hasnot issued any NARC. Documents produced are endorsement fromSub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla and PKC from Smt.RosammaPunnoose, Ex.MLA. State Government did not recommend andlater Central Government rejected the claim for want of validNARC and that CPC produced as not acceptable.W.P.(C) No. 11950 of 2010:36. The petitioner in this case is one Mr. P.K.Chellappan, said to have participated in Punnapra-Vayalarmovement and underwent underground for 16 months from09.03.1122 to 11.07.1123 M.E. in PE No.7/1122M.E. Thedocuments relied upon by the petitioner are Ext.P4 endorsementissued by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha and Ext.P5 PKCissued by one Mr.H.K. Chakrapani. Though State Government W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:23:-recommended the case of the petitioner, Central Governmentrejected by letter dated 10.11.2009 as per Ext.P8 for want of validNARC and that the PKC issued was not acceptable.W.P.(C) No. 11527 of 2010:37. The writ petitioner is the spouse of late KrishnanDamodaran who alleged to have participated in Punnapra-Vayalarmovement. The alleged suffering is underground between28.10.1946 and 30.12.1947 pertaining to PE No.7/1122 M.E. onthe file of Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. The documentsrelied upon are endorsement issued by Chief Judicial MagistrateCourt, Alappuzha and PKCs issued by Mr.P.K. Sukumaran andMr.H.K. Chakrapani. State Government recommended thepetitioner's claim but the Central Government rejected the claimby Ext.P10 for want of valid NARC and also that PKCs were notacceptable.W.P.(C) No. 2801 of 2010:38. The writ petitioner is the spouse of a freedomfighter who said to have participated in Punnapra-Vayalar struggle.The suffering claimed is imprisonment between November 1946and June 1947 in PE No.7/1122 M.E. on the file of Special W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:24:-Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. The documents produced are NARCendorsed by Superintendent, Special Sub Jail, Alappuzha and CPCby Mr.P.A. Solomon. State Government recommended the case ofthe petitioner and the Central Government rejected the same asper Ext.P10 for want of valid NARC and also on the ground thatCertificate of CPC was not acceptable.W.P.(C) No. 7181 of 2010:39. The petitioner is the wife of a freedom fighter whoalleged to have participated in Punnapra-Vayalar struggle andundergone imprisonment from 01.12.1946 to 13.12.1947pertaining to PE No.7/1122 M.E. Documents relied are Ext.P4NARC from Superintendent, Special Sub Jail, Alappuzha and Ext.P3CPC issued by one Mr.P.A. Solomon. Though State Governmentrecommended the case of the petitioner, Central Governmentrejected for want of valid NARC and that CPC was not acceptable.W.P.(C) No. 18990 of 2010:40. This also pertains to Punnapra-Vayalar movementand the claimant is one Smt.Sarojini Damodaran, Wife of lateDamodaran. According to her, her husband went underground fora period from 07.03.1122 to 11.12.1122 M.E. in the case of PE W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:25:-No.7/1122 on the file of Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha.Documents relied upon by the petitioner are PKCs issued byMr.Narayanan Ramankutty and Mr.H.K.Chakrapani apart from theendorsement by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alappuzha atExt.P7. State Government did not recommend the case of thepetitioner and the Central Government also rejected the claim forwant of valid NARC and also that PKCs are not acceptable as perExt.P11. W.P.(C) No. 20825 of 2009:41. In this case the writ petitioner is dead and I.A.No.15740 of 2011 is filed by the legal representatives to come onrecord. The same is allowed. Registry is directed to carry outnecessary amendment.42. The claim of the petitioners is, the freedom fighterunderwent underground pertaining to PE No.7/1122 M.E. on thefile of Special Magistrate Court, Alappuzha between October 1946to July 1947. Documents relied upon by the deceased petitionerare endorsement by Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha asNARC and PKC by Mr.Kunjan Sukumaran. Though StateGovernment recommended in the light of earlier judgment of this W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:26:-Court, Central government rejected the same for want of validNARC and also on the ground that PKC was not acceptable.W.P.(C) No. 14003 of 2009:43. The claimant petitioner is the wife ofMr.Dayanandan who said to have participated in the Punnapra-Vayalar movement and underwent underground between October1946 and August 1947 according to the petitioner. Documentsrelied upon are NARC issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Alappuzha and PKCs issued by Mr.Kunjan Sukumaran(Ext.P3) andSri.T.F. Yohannan(Ext.P7). State Government has not yetrecommended the case of the petitioner. Petitioner hasapproached this Court with the following reliefs:“i. declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefitof SSS Pension due to her late husband;ii. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,direction or order compelling the 2nd and 3rd respondents to forwardtheir verification-cum-entitlement to pension report along with duerecommendation of the petitioner's claim for grant of SSS Pensionand on receipt of the same, the 1st respondent may be directed togrant the benefit of SSS Pension to the petitioner due to her latehusband within a stipulated time;iii. issue such other appropriate writ, direction or order as W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:27:-this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature andcircumstances of the case.”44. According to the respondents, even though therecommendation has not yet reached, Central Government, basedon the records produced, declared NARC as not valid and PKCswere not acceptable. According to the State Government, therecommendation is already forwarded to the Central Governmenton 07.04.2011 and the application is pending before the CentralGovernment for consideration. However, the contention of the 1strespondent's counsel is, the NARC issued by the Chief JudicialMagistrate Court, Alappuzha cannot be considered as a valid NARCin view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court and also PKCs arenot acceptable documents for want of accuracy in the certificates. W.P.(C) No. 14167 of 2009:45.The writ petitioner is the wife of freedom fighteralleged to have participated in Punnapra-Vayalar strugglepertaining to PE No.7/1122 M.E. having undergone imprisonmentbetween March 1947 and December 1947. Documents producedare NARC from Superintendent of Sub Jail, Alappuzha and also CPCby Mr.P.A. Solomon. State Government has rejected the W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:28:-application. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking followingreliefs:“i. declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefitof SSS Pension due to her late husband;ii. call for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P7 andquash its original by issuance of a writ of certiorari;ii. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,direction or order compelling the 2nd respondent to forward theirverification-cum-entitlement to pension report along with duerecommendation of the petitioner's claim for grant of SSS Pensionand on receipt of the same, the 1st respondent may be directed togrant the same to the petitioner due to her late husband within astipulated time;iii. issue such other appropriate writ, direction or order asthis Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature andcircumstances of the case.”46. Writ Petitioner contends that his application was notforwarded to the Central Government. However, the counteraffidavit filed by the State indicates that the application of thepetitioner is already rejected. In that view of the matter, we haveto consider the case of the petitioner whether the StateGovernment forwarded the application to the Central Government.Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel for the 1st W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:29:-respondent, the NARC is not in accordance with the procedurecontemplated and also the CPC issued by Mr.P.A. Solomon cannotbe accepted as he was not an eligible certifier.W.P.(C) No. 24035 of 2010:47. The petitioner herein seeks SSS Pension as havingparticipated in the Travancore Freedom Struggle. According tohim, he was imprisoned between 05.04.1946 and 07.10.1946 inCC No.75/1122 M.E. The petitioner has sought for the followingreliefs:“a) issue a writ of certiorari or other writ or order ordirection calling upto Ext.P7 and quash Ext.P1 all furtherproceedings for denying the Central Pension to the petitioner;b) declare that the petitioner is a genuine freedom fighterentitled to Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension for the date ofapplication with 12% interest;c) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent toforward the recommendation to the 1st respondent for the grant ofSwathantrata Sainik Samman Pension to the petitioner from thedate of the application with 12% interest;d) issue such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fitand necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”48. According to the petitioner the documents producedby him were not considered in accordance with the procedurecontemplated and therefore, he is entitled for the above reliefs. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:30:-The counter affidavits are filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents onbehalf of the State. According to the respondents, the petitionerhas not produced any acceptable primary evidence to prove hisimprisonment suffering. They proceeded to verify the two CPCsissued by Mr.K.Gopinathan(Ext.P6) and Mr.P.K. Bhaskaran alongwith the jail records. A copy of the rejection order of the StateGovernment is produced as Ext.P1. According to the respondents,the imprisonment period claimed by the petitioner is from05.04.1946 to 07.10.1946 and according to the report of theDistrict Collector, Kollam, the period alleged to have been sufferedby the petitioner under the certificates of the Co-prisoners' do notco-relate to each other. Therefore, the case of the petitionercannot be considered due to non-production of valid NARC. Withthese averments, the writ petitioners in these cases have soughtfor disposal of the Writ Petitions. 49. In all these matters, the main contention of theUnion of India is, in none of these cases, the NARC was in theformat required to be produced and it is also not given by theState as contemplated under the Scheme concerned. Therefore,none of the cases were properly recommended or considered by W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:31:-the machinery of the State Government, hence the question ofUnion of India considering the applications would not at all arise.According to the learned counsel representing the Union of India,the NARCs have to be issued by the State Government and noneof the other authorities relied upon by the applicants like the jailauthorities, police or endorsement by Courts can be a certificatewhich could be referred as NARC by the State as contemplatedunder the Scheme. It was vehemently argued at length by thelearned Assistant Solicitor General Mr.P.Parameswaran Nair andthe Central Government counsel for the Union of IndiaMr.Krishnamoorthy that the documents like endorsement by theCourt concerned at Alappuzha and Cherthala pertaining to certainPE numbers cannot be taken into consideration because there hasto be, first establishment of such a case being registered, even ifsuch a case is registered, it must pertain to one of the freedomstruggle like Punnapra-Vayalar Movement or other movements andeven if it pertains to such freedom struggle, the concernedsufferer must be shown as one of the accused persons or theperson who either imprisoned or went underground, apart fromother sufferings. Therefore, the mere endorsement issued either W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:32:-by the Jail authority or the Court or an official of the PoliceDepartment would not automatically became a certificate whichcan be termed as NARC.50. Then coming to the Personal Knowledge Certificate(PKC) and Co-prisoners Certificate (CPC), the learned AssistantSolicitor General and the learned Central Government Counselhave strenuously pointed out several aspects of the mattercontending that the certifier, whether issuing PKC or CPC, must bequalified to issue such certificates as contemplated under theScheme and further it is the subjective satisfaction of thesanctioning authority, which scrutinises the contents of thecertificates and analyse the same. After being satisfied onlysanction for pension could be ordered. In other words, accordingto them, merely these PKCs or CPCs are issued by a person, whois entitled to issue such certificates, they are not precluded fromlooking into the contents to form an opinion, whether certifiercould have issued such a certificate and whether the contents weretrue or false. 51. It is not in dispute, though the Scheme had notoriginally envisaged NARC, later on, especially as and when the W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:33:-necessity arose the demand for such NARC came into existence.By two circulars dated 07.06.1996 and 02.11.1998 NARC came tobe introduced. According to the learned counsel for therespondents in the writ appeals and petitioners in the writpetitions, these two circulars were not envisaged at all in theearlier Scheme of 1980, and hence these circulars have no effectand the applications have to be considered only in the light of, theterms and conditions envisaged under the original SSSP Schemeof 1980. 52. However, it is also pertinent to mention that as amatter of fact Punnapra-Vayalar Movement was not evenenvisaged under the original Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme of1972. Only at the time of 25th Anniversary Silver Jubilee year ofindependence, a separate Scheme came to be introduced for grantof pension to the freedom fighters and their family from thecentral revenues commencing from 15.08.1972. Though thequantum of pension initially was `200/- to the freedom fighter and`100/- to `200/-towards the family pension, it came to beenhanced from time to time. As on today the pension from theCentral Government for the freedom fighter is `14200/- and the W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:34:-family pension also is at `14200/-. When it comes to dependentunmarried daughter's pension, it is only `3000/-. Earlier it wasconsidered as pension, but now it is considered as 'Samman'(honorarium). It is also pertinent to mention that Punnapra-Vayalar and other five movements were not part of the NationalFreedom Movement either in 1972 Scheme or in 1980 Scheme andonly in 1998 it came to be introduced by letter dated 20.01.1998bearing No. 6/1/97-FF(P), whereby the decision of theGovernment was communicated recognizing following sixmovements of Kerala: (a) Punnapra-Vayalar Movement (b) Kayyur Movement (c) Kavumbai Movement (d) Karivelloor Movement (e) Morazha Movement and (f) Malabar Special Police Strike (MSP Strike), as part ofSwatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of 1980. The SSSPScheme of 1980 contemplates what is the criterion, who areeligible for samman pension, what are the requirements to becomplied with for getting such pension, how dependents of the W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:35:-freedom fighter have to approach, what are the kinds of sufferingsentitle the applicants or dependents to get pension and theprocedure for submitting such applications. It also envisagesvarious stages how the application has to be processed and howultimately sanctioning authority has to consider application byapplying its mind, either sanction the pension or reject the same. 53. It is also not in dispute that the State machineryhas to process the application through the General AdministrationDepartment (Freedom Fighters Pension), either it can recommendor it can reject or it can decline to recommend the application.However, the application has to be forwarded to the CentralGovernment accompanied by verification and entitlement ofpension report, where either the recommendation or otherwise willbe mentioned. It is also well settled now that in spite ofrecommendation of entitlement by the State Government, it isopen to the Central Government to decline grant of pension for thereasons recorded by the authority concerned. Therefore, what isenvisaged is, the State machinery will receive the applications andother documents submitted by the applicants, then it has to verifythe applications and documents accompanying the applications W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:36:-and then forward the same with its report, as indicated at Clause10, which reads as under :“ISSUE OF SANCTION ORDER :The receipt of advance copy ofapplication form is acknowledged. The claim of the applicant willbe scrutinized in the State Government/Union Territoryadministration in consultation with State Advisory Committee onthe basis of copy of application submitted to them. After receiptof State verification and entitlement to pension report, the claimof the applicant is scrutinized and if found eligible Pension isgranted. Sanctions are issued as applications are scrutinized andconveyed to the Accountant General of the areas with copies tothe Chief Secretary of the State Government/U.T. Administrationand the Collector/D.C. of the District concerned. Simultaneously,a communication conveying sanction of pension as also the amountof pension is issued to each grantee. Applicants whoseapplications are not approved are duly informed.54. In all these matters, the bone of contention seemsto be with regard to insistence of NARC to be issued by the State.According to the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Dharmadhan, learnedcounsel Mr.Om Prakash and Mr.Satheesh appearing for applicants,there cannot be insistence of submission of NARC by the State asit was not envisaged either in the Scheme of 1972 or 1980.Therefore, the circulars cannot be part of the Scheme and hence W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:37:-the authority cannot insist on such NARC by the State. Accordingto them, by production of non-availability of records, either fromthe jail concerned or the police or the Court, it would be sufficientto prove that there is no primary evidence available, hence thesecondary evidence required under the Scheme i.e PKC or CPC asthe case may have to be taken into consideration. 55. According to the learned counsel representing theUnion of India, not only the circulars pertaining to NARC butseveral circulars right from 1972 as a part of policy decision of theGovernment were issued from time to time on different aspects,which includes the enhancement of pension and other relatedissues. Therefore, when the quantum of pension to be grantedunder the SSSP Scheme was enhanced from time to time by wayof policy decision of the Government through circulars, theprocedure for processing the applications was also introducedthrough circulars as part of the policy decision to have a clarityfor implementation of the Scheme in order to see that the genuinefreedom fighter or their dependent family will alone get thepension in question. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:38:-56. As we note from the reliefs sought for in all the writpetitions, in none of the writ petitions, the circulars are challengedby the applicants. According to them, the NARC produced bythem is the document contemplated under the circular.Therefore, they have satisfied condition of NARC either issued bythe jail authority or the police or the Court as the case may be andthere is no question of again the State Government issuing anyNARC. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, it is notopen to the writ petitioners now to contend that NARC by theState machinery was not contemplated under the original Scheme,therefore, circulars have no effect. If the applicants had producedcertificates from the above three departments as a proof for nonavailability of primary evidence, it would only compel us to opinethey were in clear understanding of what was required on theirpart to be produced i.e. NARC. But, according to them, the NARCwould include a certificate issued by any of the departmentsmentioned above. Therefore, we are of the opinion, it is notnecessary for us to consider the arguments of the writ petitionersthat NARC as envisaged under the circulars in question was notpart of the initial Scheme. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:39:-57. In order to understand what exactly the NARCwould include and who has to issue such NARC, the following twocirculars dated 07.06.1996 and 02.11.1998 are relevant whichread as under:Circular dated 07.06.1996 addressed to the Chief Secretaries of allState Department/U.T. Administration.Subject : Grant of pension to freedom fighter and their familiesfrom Central Revenues under the Swatantratra Sainik SammanPension Scheme, 1980 - Issuance of Non-availability of OfficialRecords Certificate (NARC) - acceptance regarding:Sir,I am directed to say that the State authorities havebeen issuing Non-availability of Official Records Certificate(NARC) to the freedom fighters and their eligible dependentsunder the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme whoclaim pension on the basis of secondary evidences like PersonalKnowledge Certificate (PKC) and Co-prisoners Certificates (CPC)in respect of sufferings undergone during the freedom struggle.It has come to the notice of the Central Government thatNARCs are being issued by the State authorities in a casual androutine manner without verifying the official records availablewith the District authorities, Jail authorities, Police authorities,State Intelligence Bureau, Village Crime Book etc. It is quitepossible that information in respect of one case-applicant notavailable with one source/authority. Non-verification of W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:40:-records from all possible source has been leading to a situationin granting pension to the applicants who otherwise could nothave been sanctioned the same. 2. Therefore, in order to avoid this situation, it has beendecided with the approval of Minister that Certificate aboutNon-availability of Official Records should be issued by theState authorities and will have to be worded as follows :“All concerned authorities of the State Government, whocould have relevant records in respect of the claim ofthe applicant, have been consulted and it is confirmedthat the official records of the relevant time are notavailable”3. The State Governments etc. are therefore, requestedthat the above policy guidelines may be kept in view while issuinga Certificate about Non-availability of Official Records inrespect of a claim made for grant of pension for considerationof the Central Government. They are advised to issue necessaryinstructions to all the District Authorities for compliancebefore issuing NARC to a freedom fighter.5. Receipt of the letter may please be acknowledged.Circular dated 02.11.1998 addressed to the Chief Secretaries of allState Governments /Union Territory Administrations.Subject : Grant of pension to freedom fighter and their eligibledependents from the Central Revenues under the SwatantratraSainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - Issuance of Non-availability of Official Records Certificate (NARC) - acceptance- regarding: W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:41:-Sir,I am directed to invite your kind attention to the policyguidelines in respect of non-availability of official recordscertificates (NARC) under the Swatantrata Sainik SammanPension Scheme, 1980, issued by this Ministry vide letter No.8/12/95-FF(P) dated June 7,1996 (copy enclosed). In spite ofthe above, the certificates received from your State do notconform to the said guidelines:2. As per the Scheme, the claims of the applicants forSamman Pension are required to be supported by the dulyverified official records of the relevant times, only in case ofnon-availability of such records, secondary evidences, asspecified in the scheme, can be made basis of such claims.However, due care and caution is required in such cases in viewof several instances of bogus/forged claims which have come tothe notice of the Central Government. It is of utmostimportance that before recommending such cases, completefacts of the case in which applicant claims involvement, areverified from all the agencies which could have been concernedwith the matter. These may include the police stationconcerned, the District administration, the jurisdictional court,competent authority issuing detention order, the advisoryboard/appellate court, prison authorities, and intelligenceagencies. Discrete enquiry should also be made to ascertaingenuineness of the claims. The NARC should be issued onlyafter the above verification. It is reiterated that the NARCshould invariably be worded as follows : W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:42:-“All concerned authorities of the State Government whocould have relevant records in respect of the claim of theapplicant, have been consulted and it is confirmed that theofficial records of the relevant time are not available.”3. Instances have come to the notice of the CentralGovernment, wherein, contents of some GRs have not beenverified by the district authorities on the ground that recordsof the relevant time have been destroyed. In such cases, thedistrict authorities should have indicated the prescribedretention schedule of such records and the time when the saidrecords were destroyed. This will enable the Ministry toexamine the veracity of several claims of applicants.4. In view of the above facts, it is requested that theabove guidelines may kindly be followed in letter and spirit inorder to ensure that Samman Pension is granted only to thegenuine and eligible freedom fighters”.58. The learned counsel appearing for the writpetitioners relies upon the Full Bench judgment of this Courtreported in 2003 (1) KLT 467 (Union of India Vs. PeterDevassia). The question came up before their lordships was withregard to the period which could be counted for six months periodof imprisonment for getting Freedom Fighters' Pension. Whilereferring to several aspects of the Scheme, their lordships held,the trial need not end in conviction and any period of detention, W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:43:-including imprisonment as under trial prisoner could be counted forcomputing the period of six months of imprisonment. Atparagraph 10, their lordships, while considering Ext. R1 (a)captioned as 'Salient Features of S.S.S. Pension Scheme, 1980,proceeded to hold as under :“10. Counsel for the appellant raised another contention also.According to him, the scope of the Scheme has to beunderstood in the light of Ext. R1 (a) captioned 'SalientFeatures of SSS Pension Scheme, 1980, which wassubsequently issued by the Central Government. Paragraph 2.2of Ext. R1 (a) is relied on to contend that the imprisonmentreferred to in Cl. 4 (a) is correlated to the sentence awardedafter trial. We are not able to agree with the above contentionfor two reasons. Firstly, Ext. R1(a) which only highlights thesalient features of the Scheme cannot be used as an aid tounderstand or interpret the provisions of the Scheme. At anyrate, Ext. R1(a) cannot modify the scheme or vary the meaningof the provisions of that scheme, which is a public documentissued and published by the Central Government. Secondly,there is nothing in Ext. R1(a) which runs counter to thebeneficial provisions contained in the scheme. Relying on this, the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerscontend that, NARC also finds a place at salient feature, therefore,this judgment is applicable and binding as it is by the Full Bench. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:44:-59. In the present cases, we are concerned with the twocirculars, a policy decision of the Union Government as mentionedabove. Though, NARC finds a place at salient feature, it wasintroduced as a policy decision of the Government, how NARCshould be obtained and who has to give certificate of NARC. Thiswas only to have full proof of the procedure in order to see, asalready stated above, that no genuine applicant will be denied ofthe pension. In other words, no ineligible persons should get thepension. In this context, we refer to the judgment of the ApexCourt reported in AIR 2010 SC 3588 (State of OrissaVs.Choudhuri Nayak (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors.), paragraphs 7,8and 9 are relevant, which read as under. “7. It is of some interest to note from the statisticsfurnished by the Central government in their additionalaffidavit, that 1,70,813 freedom fighters/dependants havebeen sanctioned freedom fighters pension (as on 31.5.2010). Atpresent as many as 60000 persons are getting pension or familypension as freedom fighters/dependants. The average pensionof a freedom fighter and after his/her death to the spouse isRs.12400/- p.m. and the average pension paid to a dependantunmarried daughter is Rs.3000 per month. The expenditure forthe year 2009-10 under the scheme was Rs. 785 crores. We W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:45:-have referred to these figures only to show that when falseclaims come to the notice of the Central Government, it is boundto take stern action. Any complacency on the part of theGovernment in taking action against bogus claims under anyscheme would encourage bogus claims under all schemes, byundeserving candidates who are `well connected and influential'.False claimants walking away with the benefits meant forgenuine and deserving candidates has become the bane ofseveral welfare schemes. 8. This Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India[1993 Supp. (3) SCC 2], Gurdial Singh v. Union of India [2001 (8)SCC 8] and State of M.P. v. Devkinandan Maheshwari [2003 (3)SCC 183] considered the object of the Freedom FightersPension scheme and indicated what should be the approach ofthe authorities in dealing with the applications for pension underthe scheme. We may summarize them as under: (i) The object of the scheme was to honour, and wherenecessary, to mitigate the sufferings of those who hadstruggled to achieve independence for the country. Manyfreedom fighters, even though they did not have sufficientincome to maintain themselves, would even be reluctant toreceive the Pension under the Scheme, as they would consider itas putting a price on their patriotism. The spirit of the Schemebeing both to assist and honour the freedom fighters andacknowledge the valuable sacrifices made by them, theauthorities should treat the applicants with respect and W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:46:-courtesy. The scheme should not be converted into some kind ofroutine scheme for payment of compensation. (ii) The persons intended to be covered by the Schemeare those who sacrificed and suffered for achieving theindependence of the country, without expecting any reward fortheir sacrifice and sufferings. Therefore they can not beexpected to maintain and produce perfect records or documentsabout their participation in the freedom struggle. (iii) Once the country has decided to honour freedomfighters by granting a pension, the approach of the authoritiesimplementing the scheme should not be obstructionist ortechnical while examining the applications and documentsproduced, but be practical having regard to the fact that mostof the applications are by old persons with no proper records. (iv) The criterion for pension under the scheme is notage, but participation in freedom struggle. The freedom fighterspension can, therefore, in exceptional cases, be granted even tothose who were minors at the time of struggle, if evidenceclearly showed that they had participated in the freedomstruggle and fulfilled the requirements of the scheme The above principles were spelt out to ensure that nogenuine freedom fighter was denied pension under the scheme. 9. Grant of freedom fighters' pension to bogus claimantsproducing false and fabricated documents is as bad as genuinefreedom fighters being denied pension. The only way to respectthe sacrifices of freedom fighters is to ensure that onlygenuine freedom fighters get the pension. This means that the W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:47:-Government should weed out false and fabricated claims andcancel the grant when the bogus nature of the claim comes tolight. In Union of India v. Avtar Singh [2006 (6) SCC 493] thisCourt therefore cautioned: "The genuine freedom fighters deserve to be treatedwith reverence, respect and honour. But at the same time itcannot be lost sight of that people who had no role to play inthe freedom struggle should not be permitted to benefit fromthe liberal approach required to be adopted in the case of thefreedom fighters, most of whom in the normal course areseptuagenarians and octogenarians." We will have to examine allegations of fabrication of theclaim in this case, keeping the aforesaid principles in view”. 60. At paragraph 8, their lordships of the Apex Court inthe above judgment summarised the object of the Scheme andwho were intended to be covered under the Scheme and how theprinciples have to be considered. At paragraph 9, they did refer tocertain claims, which were bogus by producing false documents, soalso fabricated documents. In that context, their lordships camedown heavily on the bogus claimants, who had approached theauthorities claiming pension with false and fabricated claims. Inthat context paragraph 9 came to be spelt out. Their lordshipshave categorically said how it is important to honour and grant W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:48:-pension to the genuine applicants and it is equally important tosee that no ineligible person will be getting pension with false andbogus claims. Therefore, by way of abundant caution, if the policyof the Central Government is to see that only genuine applicationsare considered and processed for grant of pension, it is equallyonerous and responsible duty of the Central Government to seethat ineligible applicants should not get the pension as it is nothingbut an insult to the genuine claimants as observed by the ApexCourt. In that process, if decision of the Government was tomake it more transparent to process the applications whereprimary evidence is not available, one cannot find fault with thecirculars in question.61. Then coming to the authority who could issueNARC, we rely on another judgment of the Apex Court reported inJT 2010 (10) SC 547 (Mahender Singh Vs. Union of India),paragraphs 4,5, 5.1, 6,7, 8 and 9 are relevant, which read asunder:“4. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whetherthe appellant has made out a case for grant of freedom fighterspension in terms of Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:49:-(hereinafter called "the Scheme"). According to the appellant, heremained underground for more than six months as a proclaimedoffender. The Scheme provides for the manner of application,availability of application forms, the time within which theapplications are to be made, how claims are to be proved etc. In thiscase, the appellant made the application on 20.06.1981 which withinthe time prescribed.5. Now, let us consider the manner in which the claim is to be provedwhich is provided in Para 9 of the Scheme which reads thus:“9. HOW TO PROVE THE CLAIMS (EVIDENCE REQUIRED)The applicant should furnish the documents indicated below whichever isapplicable.(a) Imprinsonment/Detention Etc.Certificate from the concerned jail authorities District Magistrate or theState Government in case of non- availability of such certificates co-prisoner certificate from a sitting MP or MLA or from an ex-MP or an ex-MLA specifying the jail period (annexure I in the application form)(b) Remained Underground:(i) Documentary evidence by way of court's/government ordersproclaiming the applicant as an offender, announcing an awardon his head, or for his arrest or ordering his detention(ii) Certificates from veteran freedom fighters which hadthemselves undergone imprisonment for five years or more ifthe official records are not forthcoming due to their non-availability.(c) Internment or Externment(i) Order of internment or externment or any othercorroboratory documentary evidence. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:50:-(ii) Certificates from prominent freedom fighters who hadthemselves undergone imprisonment for five years or more ifthe official records are not available. (Annexure II in theapplication)Note:The Certifier veteran freedom fighters in respect ofunderground suffering, internment/externment and the applicantshould belong to the same administrative unit before thereorganization of States and their area of operation must be thesame.(d) Loss of Property Job Etc.Orders of confiscation and sale of property orders of dismissalor removal from service.”5.1 As stated earlier, the appellant laid his claim only on the groundthat he had remained underground for more than four years andfrom the aforesaid provision, it can be seen that there are twomodes of providing the evidence for the same. The first one is byproducing documentary evidence and the second where the officialrecords are not forthcoming due to their non-availability, the claimis to be proved by certificates from the veteran freedom fighterswho have themselves undergone imprisonment for five years ormore. In the case of the appellant, he asserted that the officialrecords are not traceable due to non-availability and submitted acertificate from one Shri Jagdish Singh who was a veteran freedomfighter. Learned Counsel for the appellant also brought to ournotice the recommendation dated 09.04.1997 of the Government ofBihar recommending the case of the appellant for payment offreedom fighters pension under the Scheme w.e.f. 01.08.1980. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:51:-6. It is true that based on the particulars furnished by theappellant, the State Screening Committee, Bihar recommended thecase of the appellant for payment of pension under the CentralScheme. However, the Central Government in the absence of anyauthenticated records particularly the details about "undergroundsuffering" for a minimum period of six months and finding that thecertificate issued by Shri Jagdish Singh is not sufficient rejectedthe claim of the appellant.7. In the light of the controversy particularly, the claim of theappellant and the stand taken by the Government of India, we havecarefully gone through the eligibility provisions as well as relevantcriteria to prove the claim under the Scheme. In his applicationdated 07.03.1981, the appellant had merely indicated that heremained underground from 1942 to 1946. As rightly pointed out bythe respondent, he did not indicate the details of the case in whichhe had gone underground. Though the appellant has placed record ofproceedings which show that the relevant records were notavailable with them, the fact remains the said Non-availability ofRecords Certificate (NARC) did not indicate the date of disposal ofthe case as well as the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the respondent, itis not clear whether the said case, if any, was related to freedomstruggle and what was the duration of the claimed suffering of theappellant. Though the appellant had given an opportunity to furnishthe name of co-accused in the same case, who are presently gettingpension on the basis of GR No. 985/1942, the appellant was unableto furnish such details. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:52:-8. Insofar as the Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) of ShriJagdish Singh, it is the stand of the Government of India that thesame is not acceptable as the certifier was in jail for most of theperiod of the claimed suffering of the appellant. In view of thesame, it could not be possible for the certifier to verify the periodas well as the reasons of the claimed suffering of the appellantbased on his (Jagdish Singh) personal knowledge.9. Though the State Advisory Committee and the Government ofBihar recommended the case of the appellant for Central Scheme, itis pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that thesame is not binding on the Central Government in the absence ofrequired proof for the same. In other words, the recommendationof the State Government is not final or conclusive and it is for theauthority of the Central Government granting such pension to makefurther inquiry in the matter in terms of various conditionsprescribed in the Scheme and to take a final decision.”In this case also, the application was made as early as on20.06.1981, certificate from veteran freedom fighter andrecommendation of the State Government were produced. Thecertificate was held as not acceptable and recommendation of theGovernment was not binding on the Central Government was theopinion of the Apex Court. Paragraph 4 refers to the details of theScheme and how claims have to be made in the application formmeant for such claim. Paragraph 5 refers to paragraph 9 of the W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:53:-SSSP Scheme, which is relevant to be mentioned, with regard tothe primary and secondary evidence. Paragraph 5.1 refers toagain under what circumstances secondary evidence, along withthe Non-availability Certificate (NARC), can be produced.Paragraph 6 refers to the facts of the case considered by the ApexCourt where screening committee of the State have recommendedthe case of the applicant for payment of pension under CentralScheme, but the Central Government for want of authenticatedrecord, particularly the details about the underground suffering fora minimum period of six months and also with regard to thegenuineness of the certificates issued by co-prisoners, the claimcame to be rejected. Paragraph 7 refers to the stand of the Unionof India and also reference to eligibility provisions contained in theScheme. The second part of the paragraph refers to the details ofNARC certificates rather what were the deficits in the NARCcertificate. Paragraph 8 refers to the details of PKC issued by oneMr.Jagadesh Sigh. In the said case, as the certifier spent most ofthe time in jail, their lordships held that it was not possible forhim to certify that the applicant was underground for a period ofsix months, as it would not come to the knowledge of certifier, W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:54:-who was most of the time inside the jail. In that context, basedon the facts, the claim of the applicant came to be rejected. Inthis decision the relevance and also the contents of NARC to becompared with the claim of the applicant in the application asenvisaged in the Scheme came to be discussed. In other words,on facts, if such a doubt arises in the mind of the sanctioningauthority, it is open to the sanctioning authority to compare thedetails mentioned in the application with that of the PKC or CPCissued by the veteran freedom fighter and then come to aconclusion, whether the applicant deserves sanction of the pensionor not. This is what called subjective satisfaction of thesanctioning authority of the Central Government. Therefore, whatflows from the above judgment is, how the secondary evidencehas to be considered and what is NARC certificate. 62. Annexure 4 circular dated 02.11.1998, as statedabove, clearly mentions, who should issue NARC certificate. IfNARC certificate is issued by one of the Departments, who had anoccasion to know the details of the imprisonment or undergroundsufferings of the fighter, it is not enough. The State machinery i.e.General Administration of Department through its machinery has W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:55:-to secure from every corner concerned relevant information andthen issue verification and eligibility report to the CentralGovernment. In case the applicant says no primary evidence isavailable, then the responsibility of the State would be to makefurther enquiries based on the secondary evidence relied upon bythe applicant and then issue certificate of NARC. This NARCcertificate issued by the State Government would be a documentcertifying that no primary evidence is available and therefore,secondary evidence i.e. PKC in case of underground sufferings orCPC in the case of imprisonment sufferings has to be taken intoconsideration while processing the application. 63. Then coming to PKC and CPC, as already statedabove the details mentioned in these certificates have to beverified from the material available on record and so also othermaterial, if it is within the knowledge of the Advisory committeeand so also the sanctioning authority. Even if, State AdvisoryCommittee recommends, it is not binding on the sanctioningauthority of the Central Government to grant pension. There hasto be application of mind to the material on record and then basedon the independent opinion the application has to be considered W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:56:-and disposed of by the sanctioning authority. 64. Then coming to the facts of the present writpetitions, in none of the cases NARC issued by the State isenclosed. It is either from the jail authority or the police or theCourt i.e. mere an endorsement about non-availability of record.The NARC question would arise only in case secondary evidence isrelied upon by the applicant. Apparently, the State authority hasnot issued any NARC as contemplated under the circulars whileforwarding the application of the concerned applicant, either thefreedom fighter or the dependents of the freedom fighter.Therefore, in order to provide one more opportunity to theclaimants or applicants, we are of the opinion, that the rejectionsof applications by the Central Government deserves to be set asideand it is set aside accordingly. 65. So far as the three writ appeals are concerned, thejudgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. All theapplications for NARC have to be reconsidered by the concerneddepartment of the State. Based on the documents produced bythe applicants, the State machinery has to process theirapplications, including issuance of NARC as contemplated under W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:57:-the Scheme as indicated in the circulars. The Writ petitioners arealso at liberty to produce additional documents if any, if theydesire to produce before the State authority for processing theirapplications. In case the State is not made a party to theproceedings, the writ petitioners are entitled to giverepresentations to the State authority within two weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of the judgment. We also make it clearthat the State machinery has to first look into the applicationssubmitted by the writ petitioners along with the documents and ifany defects are found they must intimate the concerned persons torectify or cure the defects within a reasonable time, thereafter,from the date of rectification of the defects within next threemonths, the State shall consider and forward the applications inaccordance with the procedure contemplated under the Scheme,including issuance of NARC. Once the State Government forwardthe applications, the Central Government shall consider suchapplications and dispose of the same in accordance with theprocedure contemplated within three months from the date ofreceipt of applications forwarded with the report of the StateGovernment. W.A. No. 382 of 2010 and conn. cases-:58:-66. So far as W.A. No. 338 of 2010 is concerned, wenote, that already arrears are disbursed to the respondent writpetitioner, so far as the pension from March 2012, the CentralGovernment is at liberty to stop the pension till the application ofthe writ petitioner is disposed of in the light of the aboveobservations. The Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions are disposed ofin the above terms. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb/kmd