Alexander Thomas, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned decision of the respondent Union Government to the extent to which it has been decided by that authority that the petitioner need be granted Freedom Fighters Pension under the Central Swatantrata Sainik Samman (SSS) Pension Scheme, 1980, only from the date of this Courts judgment which issued directions in the matter and not from the date of the application submitted by the petitioner.

2. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) filed on 09.12.2016 are as follows:

"(a) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order or direction directing the respondent to disburse the central freedom fighters pension w.e.f. the date of receipt of application ie. 6.11.2000 till the date of actual disbursement of the same pursuant to the direction in Ext.P1 judgment with 12% interest as per the pension payment order Ext.P3;

(b) declare that the petitioner is entitled to freedom fighters pension due to him from the date of receipt of application till the actual payment with interest;

(c) issue such other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Heard Sri.N.Dharmadan, learned senior counsel instructed by Smt.D.P.Renu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Premlatha K.Nair, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) appearing for the respondent Union of India.

4. This Court as per Ext.P-1 judgment rendered on 10.06.2009 in W.P(C)No.39646/2003 filed by the petitioner had directed the State Government authorities and the Union Government authorities concerned to take a decision on the claim made by the petitioner for Freedom Fighters Pension under the Central Scheme, by evaluating the evidentiary value of the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner along with the jail records of the certifier who issued that Personal Knowledge Certificate etc. This Court had also quashed the impugned rejection orders passed by the State authority and the Union Government authority concerned. Incidentally, this Court had also directed that the contention of the petitioner based on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, (1993) AIR SC 2127 and in the case in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and others, (2001) 8 SCC 8 [LQ/SC/2001/2176] should also be taken into consideration while deciding the said claim. It is common ground that thereafter the State Government had recommended the case of the petitioner for the grant of pension under the Central Scheme and thereupon the competent authority of the respondent Union of India had issued orders sanctioning Freedom Fighters Pension under the Central Scheme, with effect from 10.06.2009 (date of Ext.P-1 judgment rendered by this Court). In this regard, it is pertinent to note that neither the petitioner nor the respondent has produced the proceedings of the State Government and the respondent Union of India whereby the former had issued the letter of recommendation on the petitioners case to the respondent Union of India and the latters actual proceedings in the matter of grant of pension to the petitioner. However, both sides would submit that it is clear from a reading of the last page of Ext.P-3 pension payment order dated 23.11.2011 that as a matter of fact, the petitioner was granted Freedom Fighters Pension at the rate of Rs. 6330/- per month from 10.06.2009 onwards. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of the aforestated judgments of the Apex Court mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner is legally entitled for grant of pension from the date of receipt of application (viz., Ext.P-4 application dated 03.11.2000) and not merely from 10.06.2009 (date of Ext.P-1 judgment).

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, (1993) Supp3 SCC 2. The said case arose under a claim for Freedom Fighters Pension under the Central Scheme, 1972. It was held by the Apex Court in para.10 of the abovesaid ruling that the Freedom Fighters Pension under the scheme should be made payable only from the date on which the application is made and whether the application is accompanied by necessary proof of eligibility or not and pension of course, should be sanctioned only after the required proof is produced etc. It has been held by the Apex Court in Government of India v. K.V.Swaminathan, (1997) 10 SCC 190 [LQ/SC/1996/1953] that where a claim is raised on the basis of a benefit of doubt, a pension should be granted not from the date of application, but from the date of order. Relying on the said decision in K.V.Swaminathans case , the Apex Court held in the case in Union of India and another v. Kaushalaya Devi, (2007) 9 SCC 525 that arrears of Freedom Fighters Pension should be granted from the date of the sanction order which accepted secondary evidence and need not be from the date of application. On this basis, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kaushalaya Devis case had distinguished the case in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, (1993) AIR SC 2127. It will be profitable to refer to page.526, paras.3 to 8 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Kaushalaya Devi, (2007) 9 SCC 525, which reads as follows:

"3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The short question in this case is whether the freedom fighters pension should be granted to the respondent from the date of the application or the date of the order granting the pension.

4. It has been held by this Court in Govt. of India v. K.V.Swaminathan that where the claim is allowed on the basis of benefit of doubt, the pension should be granted not from the date of the application but from the date of the order.

5. In the present case, we have perused the record and found that it is stated therein that the claim was allowed on the basis of secondary nature of evidence. In other words, the claim was not allowed on the basis of jail certificate produced by the claimant but on the basis of oral statement of some other detenu. Hence, we are of the opinion that the pension should be granted from the date of the order and not from the date of the application.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment of this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India.

7. In our opinion that decision is distinguishable as it has been stated therein that the pension cannot be granted from any date prior to the application. In our opinion this does not mean that it cannot be granted from a date subsequent to the application.

8. For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and it is directed that the pension will be granted only from the date of the order for granting pension and not from the date of the application."

6. Further, in the case in Union of India and others v. Kashiswar Jana, (2008) 11 SCC 309 [LQ/SC/2008/807] , the Apex Court dealt with the case that the respondent therein (freedom fighter) had claimed Freedom Fighters Pension and his application on that regard was filed by him on 28.07.1981 and the application was rejected by the Central Government on 29.01.1993 and a Writ Petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court questioning the correctness of the order and the said Writ Petition was allowed on 04.08.1993 and the Central Government was directed to release pension to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, the letters patent appeal was moved before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which was dismissed and an SLP was also rejected by the Apex Court as barred by time. The question that arose was the date from which the respondent therein was entitled to pension. The appellant-Union of India had released the pension with effect from 04.08.1993 (when the writ petition was filed by the respondent was allowed by the learned Single Judge). The respondent therein claimed pension from the date of filing of the application (from 28.07.1981 onwards) and he had placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, (1993) Supp3 SCC 2. The appellant Union of India had taken up the case before the Apex Court in that case that the claim of the respondent could not be decided till the year 1993 because of the non-cooperative attitude of the State Government regarding supply of requisite information and ultimately the benefit of doubt was granted to the respondent and in line with the order passed by the High Court, the pension was granted from 04.08.1993 as aforestated. After considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Kaushalaya Devi, (2007) 9 SCC 525, the Apex Court held that since the claim was allowed on the basis of secondary nature of evidence, the pension could be granted only from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. The Apex Court referred to the view in Kaushalaya Devis case that the earlier decision in Mukund Lal Bhandaris caseis distinguishable as it has been stated therein that the pension cannot be granted from any date prior to the date of application and that does not mean that it cannot be granted from a date subsequent to the application etc. Since the appellant Union of India themselves had granted pension in that case with effect from the date of the High Court judgment, their Lordships of the Apex Court also held that pension be granted from that date (04.08.1993).

7. In yet another decision in Secretary to Government of India v. Sawinder Kaur and another, (2013) 14 SCC 789 [LQ/SC/2013/323] , the Apex Court after referring to the earlier decisions in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, (1993) AIR SC 2127, Union of India and another v. Kaushalaya Devi, (2007) 9 SCC 525 and Union of India and others v. Kashiswar Jana, (2008) 11 SCC 309 [LQ/SC/2008/807] , has held that the impugned order therein which directed grant of pension from the date of the application is to be set aside. It will be profitable to refer to paras.12 to 15 of the abovesaid judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary to Government of India v. Sawinder Kaur and another, (2013) 14 SCC 789 [LQ/SC/2013/323] , which reads as follows:

"12. In Union of India v. Kaushalaya Devi, this Court referred to the decision in Govt. of India v. K.V.Swaminathan where the claim was allowed on the basis of benefit of doubt and, therefore, pension was granted not from the date of the application but from the date of the order. Further analysing, this Court opined as follows: (Kaushalaya Devi case, SCC p.526, para 5)

"5. In the present case, we have perused the record and found that it is stated therein that the claim was allowed on the basis of secondary nature of evidence. In other words, the claim was not allowed on the basis of jail certificate produced by the claimant but on the basis of oral statement of some other detenu. Hence, we are of the opinion that the pension should be granted from the date of the order and not from the date of the application."

13. In Union of India v. Kashiswar Jana, the issue arose from which date the respondent therein was entitled to pension. In the said case, the pension was released w.e.f. 4-8- 1993. The claim of the respondent was that he was entitled to the pension from the date of the application which was allowed by the High Court directing that pension should be awarded from the date of application i.e. 28-7-1981. This Court, relying on the decision in Kaushalaya Devi, ruled that pension is to be granted from the date of the order passed by the High Court i.e. 4-8-1993.

14. In the case at hand, as is evincible, the claim was not allowed on the basis of the jail certificate produced by the claimant but on the basis of the oral statement of some other detenu. The competent authority was not satisfied as regards the fulfilment of the conditions. There was no primary evidence available in the official records as required under the Scheme to establish the claim of the respondent husband that he was an ex-INA member and suffered in New Guinea/New Britain Islands to prove his eligibility for pension under the Scheme. However, regard being had to the totality of the circumstances, he was extended the benefit under the Scheme as it was a case of benefit of doubt. As is evident from the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, there is no discussion in that regard but pension has been granted from the date of the application in an extremely mechanical manner. In our considered opinion, the approach is erroneous and it has resultantly led to an unsustainable order.

15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the orders passed in the writ petition and affirmed in the letters patent appeal are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs."

8. Therefore, it is clear from the aforestated judgments that in a case where the application is ultimately allowed on the basis of secondary evidence and not by primary evidence, the respondent Union Government authorities need to sanction pension only from the date of sanction order not from the date of application.

9. In the instant case, the respondent Union of India has granted pension not from the date of the order but from the date of Ext.P-1 judgment rendered by this Court (10.06.2009). In the light of the abovesaid rulings of the Apex Court in the decisions as in Kaushalaya Devis case , Kashiswar Janas case , Sawinder Kaurs case , the applicant cannot contend that he is entitled for grant of pension from the date of receipt of his application (06.11.2000), in as much as it is indisputable that this case was considered only on the basis of secondary evidence and not on the basis of primary evidence.

10. The petitioners counsel has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and others, (2001) 8 SCC 8 [LQ/SC/2001/2176] , para.9, which reads as follows:

"9. We are satisfied that the order of the respondent authorities impugned before the High Court (Annexure P-14) dated 1-11-2000 is liable to be set aside and the appellant entitled to the grant of relief of pension. However, keeping in view the lapse of time and peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant him the pension with effect from 12-3-1973 as claimed and feel that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is granted pension with effect from march 1996 when he was forced to file Writ Petition No.12350 of 1996."

From a reading of the abovesaid judgment in Gurdial Singhs case , it can be seen that the direction in paragraph.9 has been granted in the special facts and circumstances of the case and the aforestated issue in that regard has not been pointedly raised and considered. Whereas, the issue at hand as to whether the claimant like the petitioner is entitled for grant of pension from the date of receipt of application or from the date of sanctioning order etc. has been raised and considered in the aforestated judgments of the Apex Court mentioned herein above, in claims which are established only by secondary evidence and not on the basis of primary evidence. In the light of these aspects, the petitioners contentions cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed.