JUDGMENT : The original Writ Petitioner is the widow of a deceased person who was recognized as a freedom fighter under the State freedom fighters' pension scheme. It is averred that he had participated in the “Punnapra-Vayalar movement” and that he had undergone imprisonment for ten months. The second respondent State of Kerala as per Exhibit-P1 order No.R.Dis.28875/72/FG dated 31.12.1973 had granted freedom fighter's pension under the State scheme to him with effect from 1.4.1971. Later he had died on 9.3.1995. Thereafter, his widow, the original Writ Petitioner has been getting family pension under the aforesaid State freedom fighters' pension scheme. Later, “Punnapra-Vayalar movement” was recognized by the Central Government as part of the National Freedom Struggle for the purpose of Swatantrata Sainik Samman (SSS) Pension. The Writ Petitioner had filed application seeking the benefit of that Central Scheme for family pension, as widow of the deceased freedom fighter. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Exhibit-P6 judgment dated 19.6.2003 in O.P.No.36127 of 2001, the claim of the petitioner was considered and the Central Government as per Exhibit-P8 order dated 31.1.2005 had granted freedom fighter's family pension under the Central scheme to the Writ Petitioner with effect from 20.1.1998. But subsequently the Central Government as per Exhibit-P9 order dated 27.12.2006 had suspended the grant of family pension to the Writ Petitioner on the ground that Non Availability of Records Certificate (for short 'NARC') insisted as per the Central scheme issued by the State Government was not in proper form and further that the certifier of the co-prisoner's certificate has not undergone the minimum period of imprisonment, etc. Thereupon, the Writ Petitioner had filed W.P.(C).No. 4665 of 2007 before this Court so as to challenge the said order dated 27.12.2006. This Court as per Exhibit-P10 judgment dated 3.2.2009 in W.P.(C).No.4665 of 2007 had set aside the said order of suspension contained in Exhibit-P9 herein. The Central Government had filed W.A.No.382 of 2010 before the Division Bench of this Court so as to impugn Exhibit-P10 judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.4665 of 2007. The said Writ Appeal along with other two Writ Appeals and many other Writ Petitions were disposed of as per a common judgment of the Division Bench on 13.2.2012 as per Exhibit-P11. The said Writ Appeal along with other two Writ Appeals and many other Writ Petitions were disposed of as per a common judgment of the Division Bench on 13.2.2012 as per Exhibit-P11. The Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 65 of Exhibit-P11 judgment in the said Writ Appeal had set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4665 of 2007 and directed that the request for NARC will have to be reconsidered by the Department concerned of the State Government and based on the documents produced by the applicants, the State machinery will have to process their applications, including the issuance of NARC as contemplated under the Central scheme and as indicated in the various circulars referred to in the judgment. The Writ Petitioner was also given liberty to produce additional documents, if any, before the State Government for processing the application and that the State Government will have to take a decision on the question of issuance of NARC and forward the applications for pension/family pension under the Central freedom fighters' pension scheme to the Central Government and further that on receipt of necessary recommendation from the State Government, the Central Government was directed to consider the application and dispose of the same in accordance with the procedure within three months, etc. 2. Subsequent to Exhibit-P11 judgment dated 13.2.2012, the Writ Petitioner could locate the original of the convict register of the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, relating to the imprisonment of her deceased husband. It is pointed out that Exhibit-P12 is the copy of the said convict register pertaining to the deceased claimant and further that the same was recovered after thorough search of all the personal effects of the deceased claimant. It is also pointed out that Exhibit-P12 would show that the deceased claimant had suffered imprisonment in the Central Jail, Thiruvananthapuram, for the period from 31st Chingam 1125 (ME) to 28th Chingam, 1126 (M.E.). 3. The petitioner, had forwarded the original of Exhibit-P12 convict register to the respondent-State Government. It is also pointed out that Exhibit-P12 would show that the deceased claimant had suffered imprisonment in the Central Jail, Thiruvananthapuram, for the period from 31st Chingam 1125 (ME) to 28th Chingam, 1126 (M.E.). 3. The petitioner, had forwarded the original of Exhibit-P12 convict register to the respondent-State Government. After duly processing the application, the respondent-State Government had issued Exhibit-P13 letter No.67486/FFP-A2/2012/GAD dated 8.2.2013 informing the first respondent-Central Government that the genuineness of Exhibit-P12 convict register has been verified by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, who has reported that the said certificate submitted by the petitioner is a genuine one and that he has also enclosed a copy of the concerned page of the convict register. The State Government, by Exhibit-P13 letter dated 8.2.2013, has also informed that based on primary evidence, Sainik Samman Pension case of the Writ Petitioner is recommended and has enclosed copy of the representation, copy of the convict register, report of the Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, for further action. Subsequently, the Central Government as per the impugned Exhibit-P14 proceedings dated 5.4.2013 has rejected the request of the petitioner for reconsidering the impugned Exhibit-P9 order dated 27.12.2006. This order at Exhibit-P9 is under challenge in this Writ Proceedings. 4. During the course of the pendency of this Writ Petition, the original Writ Petitioner had died on 14.2.2014 and thereafter, her legal representatives have made an application to come on record as additional petitioners to continue the prosecution of this writ proceedings and their application for coming on record was allowed by this Court as per the order dated 20.12.2016 in I.A.No.20792 of 2016, whereby the daughter and son of the deceased claimant and the deceased original Writ Petitioner were allowed to be impleaded as additional petitioners 2 and 3 in this writ proceedings, so as to enable them to continue the prosecution of this writ proceedings earlier initiated by their deceased mother Lennyamma. 5. Heard Sri.S.Sanal Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner, Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for R1 Union of India and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for R2 and R3 (State of Kerala and the District Collector, Alappuzha). 6. The main issue to be determined is as to the legality and correctness of the impugned Exhibit-P14 proceedings dated 5.4.2013. 6. The main issue to be determined is as to the legality and correctness of the impugned Exhibit-P14 proceedings dated 5.4.2013. Earlier, the claimant had put forward a case in his application submitted on 19.3.1973 for the grant of Central freedom fighters' pension, on the ground that he had involved in the freedom movement since the year 1946 and had actively participated in Punnapra-Vayalar struggle in 1946 and that the police had issued warrant and he had absconded for a period of one year and the police arrested him in 1947 and charged a case against him as per PE No.7 of 1945/1122 (M.E.) and that he had suffered eleven months imprisonment in lock up as a prisoner, etc. Reliance was earlier placed on Exhibit-P3 co-prisoner certificate wherein it is shown that the deceased claimant had taken part in the Punnapra-Vayalar movement during the freedom struggle and was lodged in prison along with the co-prisoner from November, 1946 to September, 1947. As per the provision contained in Rule 3(a) of the Central Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, for the purpose of grant of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension under the Central scheme, a freedom fighter is a person who had suffered a imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before independence. The certificate either from the prison or from an eligible co-prisoner was acceptable. The claimant was found to be entitled under the State freedom fighters pension scheme. The State Government as the recommending authority had then doubted as to whether the claimant would fulfill the eligibility in the Central scheme. However, the respondent Central Government had found in Exhibit-P8 proceedings dated 31.1.2005 that the claimant is eligible and entitled for the grant of Central freedom fighters' pension and had accordingly, sanctioned family pension under the Central freedom fighters' pension scheme to the deceased claimant’s widow Smt.Lennyamma, who is the original Writ Petitioner in this case. Later, the Central Government found that the requisite NARC was not made available by the State Government and further some doubts were also raised about the eligibility of the coprisoner to issue the certificate and it is on this ground that the family pension granted to Smt.Lennyamma was kept under suspension as per the impugned Exhibit-P9 order dated 27.12.2006. Later, the Central Government found that the requisite NARC was not made available by the State Government and further some doubts were also raised about the eligibility of the coprisoner to issue the certificate and it is on this ground that the family pension granted to Smt.Lennyamma was kept under suspension as per the impugned Exhibit-P9 order dated 27.12.2006. The Division Bench of this Court in Exhibit-P11 judgment directed the reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner and had directed the State Government to consider the question of issuance of NARC and then make necessary recommendations to the Central Government. After Exhibit-P11 judgment, it is stated that the original Writ Petitioner and her daughter had made thorough search of the personal effects and remainings of the deceased freedom fighter and could locate the original of Exhibit-P12 convict register from one of the trunk/boxes of the deceased claimant. Exhibit-P12 register shows that the deceased claimant was convicted and sentenced in C.C.No.300/124 on 29th Chingam 1125 (M.E.) by the Division I Class Magistrate, Alappuzha, and he was sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and that he was admitted to the jail on 31st Chingam1125 (M.E.) and his sentence had expired on 28th Chingam1126 (M.E.). However, it is also noted therein that the expiry of his sentence was on 28th Chingam,1126 (M.E.). However, it is endorsed against Column No.23 of Exhibit-P12 that the convict was actually released on 28.11.1125 (M.E.) before the expiry of the sentence after having been granted a special remission of two months vide G.O.HS 55/50 dated 25.1.1950 and Column No.24 thereof shows that the date of return of the warrant of the court is 28.11.1125 (M.E.). It is brought to the notice that 31/Chingam/1125 (M.E.) corresponds to 16.9.1949 and 28.11.1125 (M.E.) corresponds to 12.7.1950 and 28/Chingam/1126 corresponds to 13.9.1950. The period of imprisonment as shown in Exhibits-P2 and P3 is from November, 1946 to September, 1947, which is at variance from the dates of imprisonment and release as shown in Exhibit-P12. The venue of imprisonment in Exhibit-P2 is shown in Alappuzha Sub Jail. However, in Exhibit-P12, it is shown that the sentence was imposed by the Division I Class Magistrate, Alappuzha, in C.C.No.300/124 and the actual imprisonment was suffered in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. It is mainly for these variances in these dates that the Central Government has been inclined to take the impugned view in Exhibit-P14. However, in Exhibit-P12, it is shown that the sentence was imposed by the Division I Class Magistrate, Alappuzha, in C.C.No.300/124 and the actual imprisonment was suffered in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. It is mainly for these variances in these dates that the Central Government has been inclined to take the impugned view in Exhibit-P14. However, one important fact of the matter is that the deceased claimant is no more and Exhibit-P12 is the original of the convict register entries' certificate issued by the Central Jail, Thiruvananthapuram, and the said original was forwarded to the State Government for their considered verification and the State Government after due verification with the Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, has issued Exhibit-P13 letter dated 8.2.2013, which reads as follows : “By Registered post with A/D GOVERNMENT OF KERALA GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (FFP-A) DEPARTMENT No.67486/FFP-A2/2012/GAD Thiruvananthapuram Dated 8.2.2013 The Secretary to Government To The Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, (F.F.Division) 2nd Floor, NDCC-11 Building Parliament Street, New Delhi 110 001 Sir, Sub: Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension -judgment in W.A.No.382/10 in W.P.(C) No.4665/07 -reg. Ref : 1. Your letter N.52/CC/K/69/2004-FF(SZ) dated 27.12.2006 2. Judgment dated 13.2.2012 in W.A.No.382/10 3. Representation dated 17.11.2012 submitted by Smt. Lennyamma. I am directed to invite your attention to the reference cited. As per the judgment cited the Hon'ble High Court has directed as follows : “The judgment of the learned single judge is set aside. All the application for NARC have to be considered by the concerned department of the State. Based on the documents produced by the applicants, the State Machinery has to process their applications including issuance of NARC as contemplated under the scheme as indicated in the circulars.” Pursuant to the judgment dated 13.2.2012 in W.A.No.382/10 Government have directed the petitioner to rectify the defects for issuing non-availability of Records Certificate as mentioned in the judgment. Accordingly, she has submitted a representation dated 17.11.2012 enclosed the true extract of the convict Register of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. Subsequently, the genuineness of the true extract of the convict Register has been verified with the Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. He has reported that the certificate submitted by the petitioner is a genuine one. He has also enclosed a copy of the concerned page of the convict Register. In the circumstances based on the primary evidence the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension case of Smt.Lennyamma is recommended. He has reported that the certificate submitted by the petitioner is a genuine one. He has also enclosed a copy of the concerned page of the convict Register. In the circumstances based on the primary evidence the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension case of Smt.Lennyamma is recommended. A copy of the representation, copy of convict register, report of Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, are enclosed herewith for further necessary action at your end. The judgment in W.A.No.382/10 is thus complied with accordingly. Yours faithfully Sd/- K.R.JYOTHILAL Secretary to Government” 7. Going by the very nature of the state of affairs as well as the provisions of the scheme, it is the State Government which has to verify and ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the documents which are said to be issued by the respective authorities like prison authorities, etc. The entitlement recommendation report is also to be given by the State Government even as per the provisions of the Central scheme. The State Government, after due verification of the original of Exhibit-P12 by the Superintendent of Central prison, Thiruvanthapuram, has been convinced that Exhibit-P12 is the genuine extract of the convict register and that it would form a primary evidence for the grant of the Central freedom fighters’ pension. Accordingly, the State Government had recommended the grant of freedom fighters family pension to late Smt.Lennyamma. This Court wanted to peruse the original of Exhibit-P12 convict register and the petitioner had apprised that the same was already forwarded to the State Government before the issuance of Exhibit-P13 so as to comply with Exhibit-P11 judgment. This Court had passed an order dated 25.1.2017 in this case directing the State Government to make available the original of the convict register which is referred to in Exhibit-P13. The State Government has now furnished instructions through the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing in this case that despite diligent and earnest efforts, the original of the said record could not be searched out and the same appears to be misplaced. It appears that the petitioner had forwarded the original of Exhibit-P12 extract of convict register to the State Government immediately after Exhibit-P11 judgment for their verification and for that purpose, the State Government had forwarded the same to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, who found the same to be genuine. It appears that the petitioner had forwarded the original of Exhibit-P12 extract of convict register to the State Government immediately after Exhibit-P11 judgment for their verification and for that purpose, the State Government had forwarded the same to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, who found the same to be genuine. However, it appears that the said document must have been misplaced by the jail authorities at that time and the same is not available even for the perusal of this Court. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be blamed for non production of the original of Exhibit-P12 convict register extract and the Central Government is bound to properly take into account the aspects borne out by Exhibit- P13 letter. 8. As regards the divergence in the dates of imprisonment shown in Exhibits-P2 and P3 on the one hand, viz. Exhibit-P12, the deceased freedom fighter is no more. The State Government conclusively found in Exhibit-P1 that he is eligible for the State freedom fighters' pension. Under what circumstances there has been divergence in these dates cannot now be ascertained. But the fact of the matter remains that the State Government, who is the main authority for ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of the documents like Exhibit-P12, has come to the considered conclusion in Exhibit-P13 that Exhibit-P12 is a genuine document. On a perusal of the details and the handwritten entries in Exhibit-P12 would also show that it is a highly credible and believable document. 9. Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for the first respondent Central Government, had argued that the “Punnapra-Vayalar movement” is stated to have occurred sometime in 1946 and going by the dates in Exhibit-P12, the imprisonment suffered by the deceased-claimant is ten months from 16.9.1949 up to 12.7.1950, etc. The said argument raised by Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Central Government Counsel cannot be countenanced for reasons more than one. Rule 4 of the Central SSS pension scheme deals with the issue as to “WHAT ARE THE MOVEMENTS/MUTINIES CONNECTED WITH NATIONAL FREEDOM STRUGGLE” which are recognized for the purpose of the grant of central pension. The same reads as follows : “WHAT ARE THE MOVEMENTS/MUTINIES CONNECTED WITH NATIONAL FREEDOM STRUGGLE 4. Rule 4 of the Central SSS pension scheme deals with the issue as to “WHAT ARE THE MOVEMENTS/MUTINIES CONNECTED WITH NATIONAL FREEDOM STRUGGLE” which are recognized for the purpose of the grant of central pension. The same reads as follows : “WHAT ARE THE MOVEMENTS/MUTINIES CONNECTED WITH NATIONAL FREEDOM STRUGGLE 4. Apart from the mainstream of the liberation struggle the movements/mutinies which were directed against the British (French in case of Pondicherry and Portugues in case of Goa) with freedom of the country as its ultimate goal are also treated as part of National Freedom Struggle for the purpose of grant of pension unless any movements is specifically decided as not qualifying for the grant of Samman pension. The Movements for merger of erstwhile Princely States within the Indian Union after 15 August, 1947 and the freedom struggle in the former French and Portuguese possession in India (Colonies) are considered as part of the National Freedom Movement for the purpose of grant of Samman Pension under Scheme.” (emphasis supplied). 10. Nobody has a case that Punnapra – Vayalar movement has been specifically excluded as not qualifying for the grant of samaj pension as conceived in the first limb of Rule 4. Notification issued by the Central Government as Annexure 18 to the Central scheme shows the notified list of movements/mutinies/strikes which are recognised for the purpose of the grant of Central freedom fighters' pension by the Central Government. These details are published in the website of the Central Government. Item No.31 of Annexure 18 of the Central Scheme deals with “Punnapra-Vayalar movement”. Therefore, undoubtedly Punnapra-Vayalar movement would certainly be a recognized freedom movement for the purpose of Central scheme. But, more importantly it is to be noted that it is clearly stipulated in the 2nd paragraph of Rule 4 that movements for merger of erstwhile Princesly States within the Indian Union after 15th August, 1947, etc. are considered as part of the National freedom movement for the purpose of granting samman pension under the scheme. Therefore, even if the qualifying event for the grant of pension has taken place after 15th August, 1947 in the erstwhile Princesly States the same also would come within the eligibility zone for the grant of the Central scheme. It is common ground that “Punnapra-Vayalar movement” took place in the erstwhile Princesly States of Travancore. Therefore, even if the qualifying event for the grant of pension has taken place after 15th August, 1947 in the erstwhile Princesly States the same also would come within the eligibility zone for the grant of the Central scheme. It is common ground that “Punnapra-Vayalar movement” took place in the erstwhile Princesly States of Travancore. True that the peak of the movement of “Punnapra-Vayalar movement” occurred in October, 1946 and immediately thereafter. Professor. A.Sreedhara Menon, an eminent Professor of History, has specialised in the field of History of Travancore and about the freedom struggle in various parts of Kerala, in his authoritative treatise entitled “TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY IN TRAVANCORE” (Current Books Publication September 2001) has dealt with Punnapra-Vayalar in chapter X of that book. It is observed by that eminent historian in page 222 of that book as follows : “The Udhayabhanu Committee setup by the Kerala Government in 1986 to report on the cases which were to be considered as part of the freedom struggle for grant of pension by the Central Government pronounced their verdict against Punnapra-Vayalar being included in this category, on the grounds stated above. However, to decide the issue purely on the basis of dates, whether it is September, 2, 1946 or August 15, 1947, does not seem to be rational. In parts of India like Goa and Jammu and Kashmir and even in Travancore people's struggles continued to be waged even after these dates. In so far as Punnapra Vayalar was a revolt against the autocratic rule of the Maharaja and the Diwan, which merged with the struggle for Responsible Government in Travancore it has claims to be considered as part of the freedom struggle, irrespective of any crucial date. It may be noted that struggles for Responsible Government in Native States have been recognized as part of the freedom struggle.” It is further clearly opined by the eminent historian towards the end of page 222 of that book, that “Punnapra-Vayalar movement” had really brought about the integration of Travancore with India, blocking the road to Balkanisation. Moreover, as noted herein above, the Central Government has already recognized movement in terms of item No.31 of Annexure 18 to the Central scheme. 11. Moreover, as noted herein above, the Central Government has already recognized movement in terms of item No.31 of Annexure 18 to the Central scheme. 11. The petitioner has also placed reliance Exhibit-P15 Government of India Letter No.6/1/97-FF(P) dated 7.4.2003 addressed to the State Government whereby [which has been produced along with affidavit dated 3.7.2017 filed by the petitioners along with I.A.No.10284/2017 in this W.P.(C)] which reads as follows: “No.6/1/97-FF(P) Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs (FFR Division) New Delhi, the 7th April 2003 To Shri Thomas C.George, Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Kerala, General Administration (FFP-A) Department, Thiruvananthapuram. Subject: Recognition of six regional movements taken place in Kerala during the freedom struggle for the purpose of Samman Pension under the “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980” -regarding Sir, I am directed to refer to this Ministry's letter of even number dated 20.01.1998 on the above subject and to say that the facts relating to Punnapra-Vayalar Movement clearly show that it was a fight against the princely states for its merger in India within the Indian Union and such movements even after 15th August, 1947 are considered as part of the National freedom movement for the purpose of grant of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. Therefore, the cases of freedom fighters of Punnapra-Vayalar struggle would be covered under the aforesaid Scheme even if imprisonment period of freedom fighters had extended beyond Independence. In other words, the condition of 'imprisonment of six months in the main land jails before independence” would not apply in case of Punnapra-Vayalar struggle being a movement for merger of erstwhile Princely State, and even if the entire period of claimed suffering was after independence, it will be covered under the Scheme. 2. State Government are requested to forward the applications of participants of Punnapra-Vayalar struggle, which have been referred to them from time to time by this Ministry, along with their verification report and specific recommendation of State Government about the entitlement of pension, if their cases are otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Scheme. 3. The receipt of this letter may kindly be acknowledged. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (A.K.Srivastava) Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India.” 12. 3. The receipt of this letter may kindly be acknowledged. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (A.K.Srivastava) Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India.” 12. In Exhibit-P15 dated 7.4.2003 it is categorically stated by the Central Government that the Punnapra Vayalar movement was a fight against the princely states for its merger with the Indian Union and that such movement had continued even after 15th August, 1947 are considered part and parcel of the national freedom movement for the purpose of grant of the pension under the Central scheme, 1980 and that cases of freedom fighters of Punnapra Vayalar struggle would be covered under the above scheme even if imprisonment period of freedom fighters had extended beyond Independence. It is further made clear in Exhibit-P15 that the conditions “imprisonment of six months in the main land jails before independence” would not apply in the case of Punnapra-Vayalar struggle being a movement for merger of erstwhile princely state and even if the entire period of claimed suffering was after the independence, it will be covered under the Central scheme etc. 13. The State Government has admitted in their subsequent affidavit dated 30.8.2017 filed in this case that the norms in that regard are also regulated by Exhibit-P15 Government of India directives issued on 7.4.2003 on the matters relating to the eligibility of freedom fighters, who took part in the Punnapra Vayalar movement. 14. In this connection, it would again be apposite to refer to the illuminating treatise, “Triumph & Tragedy in Travancore” authored by Professor A.Sreedhara Menon. Page 218 of the said book deals with the death Toll occurred to the Punnapra-Vayalar Movement, which reads as follows: “Death Toll There are differences of opinion on the question as to how many persons lost their lives in the Punnapra-Vayalar uprising. The 'Travancore Information and Listener', January 1947 gives the Government version as follows:- 'The Government have verified all information be them and can say definitely that in all only about 190 persons were killed in the firing by the Military and Police'. The fortnightly report of the British Resident Col. Edwards puts the number of workers killed at 2,000. It also refers to the reports that most of the killed were burnt by pouring petrol over the bodies and that the ringleaders had been arrested and some were absconding. K.C.George in the Preface to his book 'Punnapra-Vayalar' puts the death toll at 500. Edwards puts the number of workers killed at 2,000. It also refers to the reports that most of the killed were burnt by pouring petrol over the bodies and that the ringleaders had been arrested and some were absconding. K.C.George in the Preface to his book 'Punnapra-Vayalar' puts the death toll at 500. The 'Hindu' dated November, 15, 1946 reported that about 7,000 persons might have died in the uprising and the figure is quoted by Robin Jeffrey in his 'Decline of Nair Dominance', Annie Mascarene in an article in the 'Malabar Herald' dated November 9, 1946 also observes that about 7,000 might have died. She says, 'The present tragedy which in rough estimation amounts to the loss of about 700 lives exceeds the tragedy of East Bengal'. In fact, there is no consensus of opinion in regard to the number of deaths in Punnapra Vayalar. It may not be wrong in guessing that about a thousand persons might have died in the uprising. One of the causes of the heavy death toll was that many outsiders who were not familiar with the topography of the area took part in the camps and they were ignorant of the possible routes of escape when the police and the military started their operations. The rumours circulated by the Communist Party that the military had no authority to fire and that the rifles in their possession had no bullets also seem to have made the rebels complacent and feel emboldened to face the police and military in a defiant mood, resulting in heavy death toll.” Page 222 of the said book deals with “Was it a Fight against Independent Travancore ?, which reads as follows: “Left historians and intellectuals have propagated the fanciful theory that Punnapra-Vayalar insurrection was a fight against the Independent Travancore move. The assumption underling this view is that the Communist Party was championing the cause of Indian unity in waging the Punnapra-Vayalar struggle and thereby they prevented the Balkanisation of India. Sumit Sarkar has observed as follows:;-The massacre prevented any alliance between the discredited Diwan and the Congress, though the latter was careful to bring about the integration of Travancore through pressure tactics rather than any uninhibited mass struggle-tactics which succeeded because Ramaswami Aiyar realised that the alternative to peaceful surrender might well be a violent revolution. Sumit Sarkar has observed as follows:;-The massacre prevented any alliance between the discredited Diwan and the Congress, though the latter was careful to bring about the integration of Travancore through pressure tactics rather than any uninhibited mass struggle-tactics which succeeded because Ramaswami Aiyar realised that the alternative to peaceful surrender might well be a violent revolution. In this sense, it was really Punnapra-Vayalar, which really brought about the integration of Travancore with India, blocking the road to Balkanisation. xxx xxx xxx” According to the learned author, who is specialist in the said historical aspects, even according to the report of the British Resident Col. Edwards, the number of workers killed in the said movement is stated to be at 2000 and that the 'Hindu' Newspaper dated November 15, 1946 has reported that about 7000 persons might have died in that fighting and the said figure is quoted by Robin Jeffrey in his book, “Decline of Nair Dominance”. Another article “Malabar Herald” dated 9th November, 1946 had also observed that the number of deaths could be 7000. Some other accounts give very much low figures of number of deaths as 190, 500, etc. The learned author says that it may not be wrong in guessing that about a thousand persons might have died in the uprising. Further, it is clearly opined by the learned author that despite serious divergences between various shades of opinion, more so between the Gandhian perspective and the Communist one, the said Punnapra Vayalar movement has strongly contributed to the prevention of Balkanisation of India inasmuch as it has brought about the integration of Travancore with India and has thus blocked the road to Balkanisation. (refer Lord Wavell, The Viceroy's Journal, p.47). 15. It is taking into note these historical importance and significance that the Central Government has issued necessary directives as per initial letter dated 20.1.1998 and the subsequent directives issued as per Exhibit-P15 letter dated 7.4.2003 issuing norms regarding the eligibility for freedom fighter's pension, who took part in the Punnapra Vayalar movement. 16. 15. It is taking into note these historical importance and significance that the Central Government has issued necessary directives as per initial letter dated 20.1.1998 and the subsequent directives issued as per Exhibit-P15 letter dated 7.4.2003 issuing norms regarding the eligibility for freedom fighter's pension, who took part in the Punnapra Vayalar movement. 16. In the light of the specific clarifications issued by the Central Government as per Exhibit-P15 proceedings dated 7.4.2003 as well as in basic norms as per the Central Scheme 1980, detention of a claimant for his participation in the Punnapra-Vayalar movement for the periods after 1946 or even after declaration of national Independence on 15th August 1947, itself will not be any anomaly or contradiction. So the said objection now raised by the respondent Central Government in this case will stand overruled. 17. However, Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Central Government Counsel has also urged that the State Government has not clarified in Exhibit-P13 that the sentence and the period of imprisonment referred to in Exhibit-P12 convict register was necessarily on account of the involvement of the deceased claimant in an offence which has arisen out of the events in respect of the “Punnapra-Vayalar movement” and that the Central Government is certainly entitled to be satisfied about that crucial aspects of the matter. 18. In regard to the abovesaid submission made by Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Central Government Counsel, it is urged by Sri.S.Sanalkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that it can be seen from Exhibit-P12 that the claimant was convicted for the offence under Section 9(5) of Act I of 1122, enacted by the Maharaja of Travancore on 30th September, 1946 and that the conviction was in C.C.No.300/124 as per the order dated 29.1.1125 by the Division I Class Magistrate, Alappuzha. The petitioners have made available a copy of the Act 1 of 1122 enacted by the Maharaja wherein The Preamble of Act 1 of 1122 (ME) shows that it is titled as the Travancore Emergency Powers Act, 1122 and it was enacted by the Maharaja of Travancore on 14th Kanni, 1122 (corresponding to 30th September 1946). The Act coincide with the eruption of the “Punnapra-Vayalar movement” on 27th Kanni, 1122 (corresponding to September-October 1946). It is pointed out by the petitioners that the said Act was passed on 30th September, 1946 immediately on foreseeing the problems in the Punnapra-Vayalar area, which later occurred immediately thereafter. 19. The Act coincide with the eruption of the “Punnapra-Vayalar movement” on 27th Kanni, 1122 (corresponding to September-October 1946). It is pointed out by the petitioners that the said Act was passed on 30th September, 1946 immediately on foreseeing the problems in the Punnapra-Vayalar area, which later occurred immediately thereafter. 19. The respondent-State Government is convinced that Exhibit-P12 is a genuine document. Even though the main events in respect to Punnapra-Vayalar was in October, 1946 and immediately thereafter, the subsequent provincial popular Government that had formed the Government in the erstwhile Princesly States of Travancore-Cochin was led by the State Congress party which had serious differences and opinions with the Communist Party who were the organisors of the “Punnapra-Vayalar movement” in so far as it resulted in lot of bloodshed and violence. Many persons would have gone underground even after that period and the pending police cases would have been revived only after the subsequent apprehension of such absconding accused persons and the trial would have been delayed and in such cases the actual execution of the sentences would have been delayed up to 1949-1950. The ruling Government of the day would have taken the view that such violence should be sternly dealt with in accordance with law, as otherwise any condonation would create a bad precedent. 20. Now pursuant to the directions issued by this Court to verify the authenticity of Exhibit-P15 produced by the petitioner, the State Government has filed an affidavit dated 30.8.2017 stating that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court as per order dated 25.1.2017, enquries were conducted by the State authorities and was found that Exhibit-P12 prison register as attested by the Superintendent of Central Prison is available with the State Government and the entry to the said copy tallies with the certificate of convict register produced by the petitioner. Further it is stated that Exhibit-P15 dated 7.4.2003 is also an authentic communication received from the Central Government to the State Government. Now it is pointed out by the learned Senior Govt. Further it is stated that Exhibit-P15 dated 7.4.2003 is also an authentic communication received from the Central Government to the State Government. Now it is pointed out by the learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the State Government that despite their diligent efforts, the original of the document could not be traced, except the attested copy and if the Central Government had earlier sought for any clarifications at least prior to the issuance of the impugned Exhibit-P14 order dated 5.4.2013, then certainly the original of the documents in relation to Exhibit-P12 were available about which detailed reference has been made in Exhibit-P13 and that now it is not possible for the State Government to trace out the original at this distance of time and that the State Government is fully satisfied about the genuineness of Exhibit-P12 prison register as certified in Exthibit-P13 and the attested copy of the prison register which is with the State authorities concerned. Therefore, once the authority who is having the competence to verify the genuineness of a document, viz. the State Government, gives a clear opinion after due verification by the Superintendent of the Central Prison that Exhibit-P12 is a genuine document, such opinion cannot be casually overruled. Correctness of the finding made by the respondent State Government that the late claimant had actually suffered imprisonment as evident from Exhibit- P12 for the period from 31st Chingam 1125 (M.E.) to 28.11.1125 (M.E.). This corresponds to the period from 16.9.1949 to 12.7.1950. These crucial and relevant aspects in the matter have been totally omitted to be taken into consideration by the first respondent-Central Government in the issuance of the impugned Exhibit-P14 rejection proceedings. 21. After considering the factual aspects of the matter, this Court is of the view that pursuant to the remit made by the Division Bench of this Court in Exhibit-P11 judgment dated 13.2.2012, the competent authority of the Central Government should have verified all these details with the State Government and if diligent efforts had been taken at least at the time of issuance of Exhibit-P14 dated 5.4.2013 or immediately thereafter, then the details that are now required would have been certainly available. Moreover, the State Government has clearly certified in Exhibit-P13 about the genuineness of Exhibit-P12 prison register. At this distance of time, the Central Government is again insisting for verification of the original documents with the respondent State Government. Moreover, the State Government has clearly certified in Exhibit-P13 about the genuineness of Exhibit-P12 prison register. At this distance of time, the Central Government is again insisting for verification of the original documents with the respondent State Government. Thus it appears to be quite an impossible task, especially it is now disclosed by the State Government authorities that the originals of the documents are not traceable, except the attested copy of the prison register. Moreover, the widow of the freedom fighter was granted the benefits as per Exhibit-P8 dated 31.1.2005, which is subsequently cancelled by the Central Government though at that time the State Government had taken the view based on the then available records, the case could not be recommended. It was overruling the opinion of the State Government that the Central Government had chosen to grant the benefits to the freedom fighter's widow as per Exhibit-P8 dated 31.1.2005. Later on the Central Government has taken the decision to cancel Exhibit-P8, as per Exhibit-P9 impugned order dated 27.12.2016, which ultimately resulted in the remit as per Exhibit-P11 Division Bench judgment dated 13.2.2012. The State Government has certified about the genuineness of the certificate as per Exhibit-P12 prison register. If the Central Government had required any clarifications on those aspects as to the factual nature of the case involved in Exhibit-P12 register for which the petitioner was detained, etc., then materials could have been possibly forthcoming. At this point of time, it is not right and proper for the Central Government to insist for the originals of the documents as the same are not seen traceable now. In the light of these aspects, the impugned Exhibit-P14 order is set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the first respondent Central Government for passing fresh orders, in the light of Exhibit-P13 communication issued by the State Government and in the light of the stand taken by the State Government as reflected in their affidavits filed in this case, which have been referred to herein above. The widow of the freedom fighter had died on 14.2.2014. So essentially the claim of the LRs of the freedom fighter and the widow is only for the consequential benefits from the date of issuance of Exhibit-P9 cancellation order dated 27.12.2006 upto the date of the death of the widow on 14.2.2014, which is comparatively a short period. The widow of the freedom fighter had died on 14.2.2014. So essentially the claim of the LRs of the freedom fighter and the widow is only for the consequential benefits from the date of issuance of Exhibit-P9 cancellation order dated 27.12.2006 upto the date of the death of the widow on 14.2.2014, which is comparatively a short period. It is stated by the petitioners that all the benefits upto 27.2.2006 have already been paid by the Central Government to their mother (widow of the freedom fighter). 22. It is hoped and expected that the competent authorities of the first respondent Central Government will take a fair, reasonable and pragmatic decision in the matter and pass orders on the claim of the widow of the freedom fighter, more particularly for the period from 27.12.2006 upto 14.2.2014. 23. The petitioners may give a detailed representation in the matter along with a certified copy of this judgment before the competent authority of the first respondent Central Government within two weeks from the date notified for receiving certified copy of this judgment and thereafter orders may be passed by the Central Government as directed herein above within six weeks thereafter. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.