JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who is stated to be a widow of a person, who said to have remained underground for the minimum requisite six months’ period on account of his participation in the freedom movement, is aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P17 proceedings dated 9.9.2015 issued by the 1st respondent Union Government, whereby the claim for freedom fighters' pension under the Central Swantantrata Sainik Samman (SSS) Pension Scheme, 1980 has been rejected, inspite of the recommendation in that regard made by the 4th respondent State Government. 2. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “(i) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to call for the records culminated in Ext.P14 order and to quash the same. (iii) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to call for the records culminated in Ext.P15 & P17 orders and to quash the same; (iv) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to call for the records culminated in Ext.P15 & P17 orders and to quash the same; (v) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the 1st Respondent to grant SSS Pension to the late Freedom Fighter Sri. Kana Kunhikannan Nair, as approved as per Ext.P4, i.e. With effect from 17-08-2006; (vi) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to grant continuance pension to the petitioner being the widow of late Sri. Kana Kunhikannan Nair, within a time period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; (vii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to pay the arrears of pension with interest to the petitioner. (viii) Award cost of these proceedings to the petitioner; and....” 3. Heard Sri. Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Suvin. R. Menon, the learned Central Government Counsel (CGC), appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. Jestin Mathew, the learned Government Pleader appearing for R4 and R5. 4. According to the petitioner, her husband was an activist, who had taken part in the National Freedom Struggle in various parts of erstwhile Malabar District. Suvin. R. Menon, the learned Central Government Counsel (CGC), appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. Jestin Mathew, the learned Government Pleader appearing for R4 and R5. 4. According to the petitioner, her husband was an activist, who had taken part in the National Freedom Struggle in various parts of erstwhile Malabar District. The claim of the petitioner is that her husband was arrayed as an accused in a criminal proceedings on the ground of his participation in the freedom movement and consequent to the warrant of arrest issued in that regard against him, he was constrained to remain underground for the period from October 1940 to May 1943 and that he has remained underground for 3 years, which is more than the requisite minimum period of six months period and that he is eligible and entitled for the grant of freedom fighters’ pension under the Central Scheme. In this regard, it is also pertinent to note that though the petitioner has made a claim that her husband had also suffered actual imprisonment for more than requisite minimum six months’ period etc, it is not worthwhile to pursue further on the merits of the claim in that regard in as much as even in the Co-prisoner certificate issued as per Ext.P8, it is not stated as to the period during which he had actually suffered imprisonment. 5. Earlier, the competent authority of the 4th respondent State Government had granted freedom fighters’ pension under the State Scheme to the petitioner’s husband as per Ext.P1 proceedings. Essentially, the claim now made by the petitioner is that her husband had remained underground from October 1940 to 1943 and the said aspect is sought to be established on the basis of Ext.P9 Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) dated 15.11.2005 issued by Sri. K.P.R.Rayarappan. It is not in dispute that the State Government has already issued the Non- Availability Record Certificate (NARC) in the prescribed performa as per the Central Scheme to the 1st respondent Union Government as per Ext.P3 dated 24.7.2007. The State Government has also recommended the case of the petitioner’s husband as per Ext.P16 proceedings dated 19.8.2015. In spite of this, the competent authority of the 1st respondent Union Government has rejected the claim as per the impugned Ext.P17 proceedings dated 9.9.2015. The State Government has also recommended the case of the petitioner’s husband as per Ext.P16 proceedings dated 19.8.2015. In spite of this, the competent authority of the 1st respondent Union Government has rejected the claim as per the impugned Ext.P17 proceedings dated 9.9.2015. It is relevant to note that though the 4th respondent State Government has recommended the case of the petitioner’s husband as per Ext.P16, they have not found Ext.P9 PKC issued by Rayarappan to be acceptable and they have placed reliance on PKC issued by one Sri.P.M. Kunjiraman Nambiar. The 1st respondent Union Government has considered the acceptability of both Ext.P9 PKC issued by Sri.K.P.Rayarappan as well as Ext.P12 PKC issued by P.M. Kunjiraman Nambiar. The main ground of rejection stated in Ext.P17 is that even going by Ext.P12 PKC, Sri. P.M. Kunjiraman Nambiar was said to be in jail for the period from 11.9.1942 upto 1944 and that therefore, the said period of imprisonment of Sri. P.M. Kunjiramam Nambiar overlaps fully with the claimed underground suffering period of the petitioner’s husband from October, 1942 to May 1943 and that therefore Sri. P.M. Kunjiraman Nambiar may not be in a position to authentically certify about the underground suffering period of the claimant at a time when the certifier himself was in jail for the whole period in question. Ext.P9 PKC issued by Sri. K.P.R. Rayarappan is also held to be not acceptable mainly on the ground that he has suffered imprisonment for less than one year and that therefore, he is not eligible to issue PKC as one in Ext.P9 as per the Central Scheme. 6. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that the reliance made by the petitioner in Ext.P12 PKC dated 12.1.1998 issued by Sri. P.M. Kunjiraman Nambiar may not be tenable as the period of imprisonment of the said certifier overlaps with the claimed period of underground suffering of the petitioner’s husband for the whole period in question. Therefore, the 1st respondent cannot be found fault with for not having accepted Ext.P12 PKC issued by Sri.P.M. Kunjiraman Nambiar. 7. However, after considering the contentions of both sides and after perusal of documents like Exts.P9, P10, P32 and P33, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of Ext.P9 PKC issued by Sri. Therefore, the 1st respondent cannot be found fault with for not having accepted Ext.P12 PKC issued by Sri.P.M. Kunjiraman Nambiar. 7. However, after considering the contentions of both sides and after perusal of documents like Exts.P9, P10, P32 and P33, this Court is of the considered view that the rejection of Ext.P9 PKC issued by Sri. K.P.R. Rayarappan requires legal interdiction and the matter requires serious reconsideration at the hands of the respondents concerned. 8. The reasons for arriving at this conclusion are as follows : In Ext.P9 PKC issued by Sri. P.K.R. Rayarappan, it is clearly stated that he was the recipient of central freedom fighters’ pension as per proceedings No.1688/SSS/PS issued by Ministry of Home Affairs of the 1st respondent and that he had actually suffered more than 5 years' imprisonment on account of his participation in the freedom struggle and further that the petitioner’s husband had remained underground for more than six months for the period from October 1940 to May 1943. Ext.P10 dated 15.2.1972 is the copy of application submitted by Sri.K.P.R.Rayarappan to the respondents for grant of freedom fighters’ pension under the Central Scheme. There does not appear to be any serious dispute that Sri. K.P.R. Rayarappan is the recipient of freedom fighters’ pension under the Central Scheme. Before the State Government had made recommendations in that regard, it had called for a report from the District Revenue officials concerned and the Tahsildar concerned had submitted Ext.P32 letter dated 4.4.1972 to the District Collector giving the details of the imprisonment suffered by Sri. K.P.R. Rayarappan for various periods. Ext.P33 report of the Tahsildar has also been enclosed therewith. At the outset, it is to be mentioned that most of the details given in Exts.P32 and P33 were tallying with the details shown in Ext.P10 application. In Ext.P32 letter dated 4.4.1972, it is stated by the Tahsildar, Cannanore that Sri. K.P.R. Rayarappan was a freedom fighter, who had suffered detention in Central Jail, Velloor for the period form November 1940 to December 1942 and he was again detained in the same jail in 1946 and further that he had also undergone rigorous imprisonment at Central Jail, Cannanore from April 1947 to August 1947 etc. The details of these aspects are again reiterated in Ext.P33 report as can be seen in serial Nos.2 and 7 thereof. The details of these aspects are again reiterated in Ext.P33 report as can be seen in serial Nos.2 and 7 thereof. Ext.P32 letter dated 4.4.1972 issued by the Tahsildar, Canannore reads as follows: “The applicant was a freedom fighter. He was kept under detention at the Central Jail, velloor for the period from 1940 to December 1942. He was again detained at the same Jail in 1946. He had also undergone rigorous imprisonment at the Central Jail Cannanore from April 1947 to August 1947. The applicant has not produced the jail records. He has requested that the concerned jail authorities may be addressed by the District Collector and the records obtained as the Jail records applied for, by him, has not been received by the applicant. His monthly income is Rs.125/-. His request for the grant of pension may be considered favourably after verifying the Jail records to be obtained. The application, the report in the prescribed form and the statement recorded from the applicant are submitted herewith.” 9. The remarks offered as against serial Nos.2 and 7 respectively of Ext.P33 report of the Tahsildar, Cannanore reads as follows: 2 Period for which the freedom fighter was sentenced to undergo imprisonment or period of detention or extract from the convict register or other relevant reliable record duly certified by the competent authority. The applicant had undergone detention at the Central Jail, Velloor for he period from November 1940 to December 1942. He was again kept under detention at the Central Jail Vellor in 1946. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Velloor has not been reached by the applicant. The applicant was also imprisoned at the Central Jail, Cannanore for the period from April 1947 to August 47. He has not applied for the Jail records from the Superintendent Central Jail, Cannanore. He has requested that the concerned Jail authorities may be addressed by the District Collector and the records obtained. 7 Other remarks, if any, and recommendation of the Tahsildar. The applicant was a Freedom Fighter. The applicant was kept under detention at Central Jail, Velloor for the period from November 1940 to December 1942. He was again detained at the same Jail in 1946. He had also undergone rigorous imprisonment at the Central Jail, Cannanore from April 1947 to August 1947. The applicant has not produced the records. The applicant was a Freedom Fighter. The applicant was kept under detention at Central Jail, Velloor for the period from November 1940 to December 1942. He was again detained at the same Jail in 1946. He had also undergone rigorous imprisonment at the Central Jail, Cannanore from April 1947 to August 1947. The applicant has not produced the records. The same may be called for by the District Collector from the concerned Jail authorities. His income is Rs.125/- p.m. His personal marks of identification are correct. His request for the pension may be considered favourably after verifying the jail records. The applicant's postal address is given below. Address: K.P. Rayarappan, Kalliasseri Amsom and Desom, P.O. Kalliasseri, Cannanore Dist. 10. If after proper enquiry, it is certified by the District Collector that materials in Exts.P32 and P33 are acceptable to his satisfaction, then it would really establish that the finding made by the respondent Union Government that Sri. K.P.R. Rayarappan has not suffered imprisonment for the minimum prescribed period of two years is factually wrong, going by the details in Ext.P10 application as corroborated by EXts.P32 and P33. Further, it isto be borne in mind that even in Ext.P16 recommendations made by the State Government, they have not made a positive finding about the acceptability of Ext.P9 PKC issued by Sri. Rayarappan on the ground that he has suffered minimum two years’ actual imprisonment etc. However, Sri. Suvin. R. Menon, the learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) appearing for R1 Union Government would submit that even going by the details in EXts.P32 and P33, Sri. K.P.R. Rayarappan (certifier of Ext.P9), was in jail for the period from November 1940 to December 1942 apart from the subsequent periods and that therefore, his actual imprisonment would overlap with the claimed period of underground suffering of the petitioner’s husband at least for three months, viz., October, November and December, 1942 and that, hence, the balance underground period is only from January 1943 to May 1943 (five months), which is below the requisite minimum six months’ period etc. In that regard, the learned Central Government Counsel would also place reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 14 of the judgment in Mahender Singh v. Union of India reported in [ 2010 (12) SCC 675 ], which reads as follows : ““14. In that regard, the learned Central Government Counsel would also place reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 14 of the judgment in Mahender Singh v. Union of India reported in [ 2010 (12) SCC 675 ], which reads as follows : ““14. Insofar as the personal knowledge certificate (PKC) of Shri Jagdish Singh, it is the stand of the Government of India that the same is not acceptable as the certifier was in jail for most of the period of the claimed suffering of the appellant. In view of the same, it could not be possible for the certifier to verify the period as well as the reasons of the claimed suffering of the appellant based on his (Jagdish Singh) personal knowledge.” In that case, insofar as the PKC (Pesonal Knowledge Certificate) of Sri. Jagdish Singh, it was the stand of the Government of India that the same is not acceptable, as the certifier was in jail for most of the period of the claimed suffering of the appellant. That in view of the same, it was not possible for the certifier therein to verify the period as well as the reasons of the claimed suffering of the appellant based on his (Jagdish Singh) “Personal Knowledge”. 11. Per contra, Sri. Mahesh V. RAmakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 8 of the above said judgment in Mahendra Singh’s are not the essence and substance of the “ratio decidendi” of the said judgment and it is only a passing observation and it has been only held that where the certifier was in jail for most of the period of the claimed suffering of the claimant, then PKC issued by such certifier may not be acceptable and that in the instant case, the period of overlapping of the jail suffering of the certifier with the underground suffering of the claimant overlaps only by three months out of eight months and that therefore, there is authenticity for the certification as regards the substantial periods of underground suffering etc and that going by the yardstick of proof based on preponderance of probability, Ext.P9 PKC is legally acceptable. 12. 12. Having heard both sides, this Court cannot take a “hyper technical” “tunnel visioned” approach in understanding and applying the abovesaid observations of the Apex Court in para 14 of the decision in Mahender Singh's case supra reported in (2010) 12 SCC 675 , p.679, para 14. In Mahender Singh's case supra the Apex Court has clearly found on facts that the PKC (Personal Knowledge Certificate) of the certified therein, one Sri.Jagdish Singh, is not acceptable as the said certifier was in jail for most of the period of the claimed suffering of the appellant therein and hence, it was held that it is not possible to the certifier to verify the period as well as the reasons for the claimed suffering of the appellant/claimant therein based on the said personal knowledge of the said certifier. In the instant case, it is seen that the certifier of Ext.P-9 PKC was not in jail detention for the substantial period during which the claimant herein has remained underground. So Ext.P-9 PKC cannot be rejected or brushed aside, merely on the abovesaid aspect that the certifier was in jail detention for a relatively small period, when the claimant had remained underground. It has to be borne in mind that the one of the cardinal aspects in understanding the observations and the ratio recidendi of the judgment of a constitutional court is that the same should not be understood and interpreted as if it is a statute or a “euclids theorem”. The substance and essence of such observations and ratio descindi of the judgment of a court should be absorbed and appreciated with reference to the facts of the case on the basis of which such observations and dictum have been laid down by the court in that judgment. It is by such appreciation that the observations in the judgment will have to be applied in the facts and circumstances of another case. The essence and substance of the abovesaid observations of the Apex Court is that if the certifier of the PKC was in jail for the substantial part of the period of the claimed suffering of the claimant, then it may not be possible for the certifier to verify on the basis of his personal knowledge as to the period as well as the reasons for the claimed suffering of the claimant, who had remained underground. 13. 13. Whereas in the instant case, the certifier of Ext.P-9 PKC was not in jail detention for the substantial period during which the claimant herein had remained underground. So Ext.P-9 PKC cannot be rejected or brushed aside merely on the abovesaid aspect that the certifier was in detention for a relatively smaller period, when the claimant had remained underground, provided Ext.P-9 is otherwise found to be reliable on the basis of the standard of preponderances of probabilities, which need not satisfy the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. So the abovesaid objections raised on behalf of the 1st respondent Union Government regarding the acceptability of Ext.P-9 PKC due to the abovesaid aspect, cannot be countenanced and the submissions of the petitioner's counsel on that point, merits acceptance to the extent indicated and it is so accordingly ordered in resolution of that point of controversy. 14. Moreover, one aspect to the matter is clear like the day-light that the stand taken by both the 4th respondent State Government in Ext.P16 and that by the 1st respondent Union Government in Ext.P17 that Sri. P.K.R. Rayarappan, the certifier of Ext.P9 PKC is not eligible to issue such a certificate as per the Central Scheme in as much as he has not suffered the minimum prescribed jail period of not less than one year, may not be tenable going by the new materials now discernible from Exts.P10, P32 and P33. This of course is subject to the verification of the contents of Exts.P32 and P33 by the competent authority State Government like the District Collector on the basis of the proper enquiry that may be conducted by the District Revenue Official concerned headed by the District Collector concerned. In that view of the matter, the impugned proceedings require legal interdiction and matter is to be remitted, for considering these aspects which has now arisen on account of the new materials. Accordingly, the impugned Ext.P16 proceedings dated 19.8.2015 of the 4th respondent State Government and the impugned Ext.P17 rejection order dated 9.9.2015 issued by the 1st respondent Union Government will stand set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the competent authorities of the 4th respondent State Government and the 1st respondent Union Government respectively for further consideration. 15. Accordingly, the impugned Ext.P16 proceedings dated 19.8.2015 of the 4th respondent State Government and the impugned Ext.P17 rejection order dated 9.9.2015 issued by the 1st respondent Union Government will stand set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the competent authorities of the 4th respondent State Government and the 1st respondent Union Government respectively for further consideration. 15. The petitioner will submit written submissions both before the 4th respondent State Government and 5th respondent District Collector, Kannur and may produce relevant materials like Exts.P10, P32, and P33 before the authorities in order to advance her respective contentions regarding the same. Thereafter, the District Collector will conduct an enquiry and ascertain as to whether he is satisfied with the contents of EXts.P32 and P33. It is submitted by the petitioner that she could obtain materials like Exts.P10, P32 and P33 under Right to Information Act submitted before the 5th respondent District Collector. The 5th respondent District Collector may examine the files and records in relation to Exts.P32 and P33 etc, and in that regard he may also conduct necessary enquiry through the Tahsildar concerned, who is shown as the author of those records, and furnish a report to the 4th respondent State Government as to whether the District Collector is satisfied about the correctness of Exts.P32 and P33. The copy of the said report of the 5th respondent District Collector should be furnished by him to the petitioner by registered speed post. Thereafter, the 4th respondent State Government may afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through her authorized representative or counsel, if any and then may consider the acceptability or otherwise of Exts.P32 and P33 and then may decide as to whether Sri. K.P.R. Rayarappan, the author or certifier of Ext.P9 PKC is eligible certifier under the Central Scheme to issue such a certificate and as to whether they are satisfied about the factual correctness of the details shown in Ext.P9 PKC etc., going by the norms of proof on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not on the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The entire process in this regard should be duly completed by respondents 4 and 5 within 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The entire process in this regard should be duly completed by respondents 4 and 5 within 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter the 4th respondent State Government may issue necessary communication to the 1st respondent Union Government in the matter of their recommendation regarding the claim of the petitioner’s husband. After receipt of the communication in that regard, the competent authority of the 1st respondent Union Government may pass orders on the claim of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighters’ family dependent pension under the Central Scheme, as the dependant widow of the deceased claimant. Orders in this regard should be passed by the 1st respondent Union Government within six weeks from the date of communication as aforestated from the 4th respondent State Government. With these observations and directions, the above writ petition (civil) will stand disposed of.