The main legal point established is that in cases of doubt regarding freedom fighter pension claims, the grant of pension is justified from the date of the decision, not from the date of the claim, as supported by relevant Supreme Court judgments and the policy of the Government.

Shiva Kirti Singh and J.N.Singh JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Union of India Mr. S.N. Pathak.

2. The appellant had claimed arrears of freedom fighter pension for the period between 4.3.1978 to 9.11.1997 through writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 10718 of 1998 which has been dismissed by order under appeal dated 30.3.2000 but the Writ Court has given an observation that if the petitioner is able to produce relevant materials to the satisfaction of the Central Government that the doubt as to whether her husband was compelled to remain underground for six months or more is dispelled, then the respondents will consider the case of the pensioner Dargahi Lal Keshari, the deceased husband of the petitioner, and then a fresh order may be passed by the respondents in respect of the petitioners claim in accordance with law.

3. From the materials available on record, it is not in dispute that petitioners husband was granted freedom fighters pension under the 1972 Scheme on 12.5.1975 with effect from 15.8.1972 but the said grant was suspended on receipt of complaints on 4.3.1978. It appears that after filing show cause etc. in the matter the husband of the petitioner died on 9.10.1990. Upon receipt of several reports from the authorities of the State Government, the pension in favour of petitioners husband was cancelled on 11.3.1996. However, it appears from letter of the concerned authority of the Central Government that despite the aforesaid cancellation, a fresh decision was taken and as a result, by extending benefit of doubt in respect of the claim of petitioners husband for freedom fighter samman pension, the petitioner, as the widow, was allowed such pension with effect from the date of the order i.e. 9.11.1997.

4. The grievance of the appellantpetitioner is against the aforesaid order. It has been submitted that even if a benefit of doubt was the basis for allowing pension to the petitioner, since her deceased husband was sanctioned such pension and he received the same prior to 4.3.1978, the pension which has been restored, should be with effect from that date with entitlement for arrears which have not been paid for the period between 4.3.1978 to 9.11.1997.

5. There is no doubt that under the law as discussed by the learned single Judge, in a case of grant of freedom fighter samman pension in spite of some doubt regarding the claim, the grant of pension is justified from the date of decision allowing such pension and not from the date of application. In this regard reliance has been placed by the Writ Court on decision of the Supreme Court dated 30.4.1996 in Union of India V/s. M.R. Chelliah Thevar, Civil Appeal No. 7762 of 1996. That decision of the Supreme Court has considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari, AIR 1993 SC 2127 on which learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance. We find no difficulty in accepting that had the case of the appellant been of a fresh grant of pension, in the facts and circumstances as discussed by the Writ Court, the grant of pension from the date of order would have been absolutely justified and covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court.

6. The only distinction sought to be pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant is that in the present case the petitioner has not been given pension as a fresh grant but it has been restored to her as widow of a freedom fighter entitled for freedom fighter samman pension as would appear from Annexure-8 to the writ petition dated 23rd December, 1997. According to learned counsel for the appellant, once the freedom fighter samman pension of petitioners husband was restored, it not being a fresh grant, the arrears of pension should have been allowed and the decision to grant pension to the petitioner prospectively from 9.11.1997 is not proper and legal. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the decisions of the Supreme Court relate to