Leave granted.
The facts which are not in dispute are that the
appellant is the unmarried daughter of a veteran freedom
fighter. Father of the appellant was given freedom fighter's
pension under the Kerala Freedom Fighters' Pension Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Rules')
promulgated by the respondents. He started getting this
pension w.e.f. 01.04.1971 till his death on 11.07.1985. The
Rules postulate grant of pension after the demise of the
pensioner to his widow/ minor sons/ unmarried daughters etc.,
as well. Because of this reason, mother of the appellant
started getting pension after the demise of her father. She
continued to get this pension till 13.09.2012 when she also
passed away. The appellant applied for the said pension on
the ground that she was unmarried daughter of the veteran
freedom fighter and, therefore, she is entitled to get the
pension under the 1971 Rules.
It may be noted that by Order dated 02.05.2012, Rule
11A was inserted in the said Rules as per which the
Government has the power of sanction of pension to dependent
widowed daughter/ divorced daughter till their remarriage or
death and also to the physically / mentally disabled
dependent son/daughters.
The appellant gave representation dated 08.10.2012
claiming pension under the aforesaid Rule 11A. As per the
extant Rules, enquiry is to be made by the Village Officer to
verify the contents of the application and the claim made
therein. In the instant case, Tehsildar under the Office of
District Collector conducted this enquiry and submitted the
report. The District Collector submitted his report dated
30.11.2012, inter alia, stating as under: JUDGMENT
“The applicant was residing along with her late
mother. She has not legally married so far. However,
she is having a son aged 25 years in her extramarital
relationship. The son got married and residing in his
wife's house at Thumpoly. The applicant Philomina is
now residing along with her nephew. She does not have
any other income. The matter is reported along with
the application and annexed records herewith.”
He, thus, as per the aforesaid report, found that the
appellant had not married. She was, accordingly, unmarried
daughter of her late father who was given freedom fighters'
pension under the aforesaid Rules. No doubt, it was
mentioned therein that she had a son aged 25 years from her
extra-marital relationship. At the same time, during the
enquiry, it was also found that the said son got married and
was residing in his wife's house at Thumpoly, whereas the
appellant is resident of Alappuzha and is residing along with
her nephew. The fact that she is residing with her nephew
also shows that there is no other person, after her parents
passed away, to take care of her. It is also categorically
found that she does not have any other income.
Notwithstanding the above, her request for grant of
pension was turned down on the ground that she is having a
son who is 25 years old and on this basis, it was concluded
that she was not dependent on her parents. Same view is
taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
dismissing the writ petition filed against the order of the
District Collector and the Division Bench vide the impugned JUDGMENT judgment has affirmed this view.
Relevant Rule with which we are concerned in this case
is Rule 10 which reads as under: -
“10. The widow/minor sons/unmarried daughters who
have not otherwise become independent of a Freedom
Fighter who has been sanctioned a pension under rule
6 shall be eligible to the continuance of the
pension.”
As per the aforesaid Rule, unmarried daughters are
eligible for freedom fighter's pension and they become
ineligible only if they are independent. This independence
is also related to the freedom fighter who was getting the
pension.
In the instant case, from the facts disclosed above, it
becomes manifest that the appellant been an unmarried
daughter of late Shri Anthrayose Kariyadiparambu, a freedom
fighter and late Stella Anthrayosegi, who never got married.
As per the report of the Tehsildar, she had no income. She
started living with her nephew after the demise of her
parents. Thus, she never became independent of her father, a
freedom fighter. The High Court has committed an error in
relying upon the fact that she has a son who was born of
extra-marital relationship of hers with somebody ignoring the
fact that he did not live with the appellant and is living
with his wife at his wife's house. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that all the ingredients which are required to be JUDGMENT satisfied to earn pension as per Rule 10 above stand
satisfied in the instant case.
We, accordingly, allow this appeal setting aside the
impugned judgment and hold that the appellant shall be
entitled to pension w.e.f. 14.09.2012, as her mother passed
away on 13.09.2012. The respondents shall start paying
pension to the appellant within one month from today and
insofar as arrears are concerned, the same shall be paid
within two months.
[ A.K. SIKRI ]
[ R.K. AGRAWAL ] New Delhi; April 26, 2016.