H.L. Dattu, C.J.

The appellant before us is a freedom fighter. He had approached the competent authority under the Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension Rules, 1971 (the Pension Rules for short), inter alia claiming freedom fighters pension as provided under the Rules. The competent authority under the Pension Rules, after considering the application so filed by the appellant, has passed Ext.P2 order dated 20.5.2001 and in that has granted the freedom fighters pension from the date of the sanction order.

2. After receipt of Ext.P2 order, the appellant had filed Ext.P3 representation, inter alia, requesting the respondents to give him freedom fighters pension not from the date of the order, but from the date of filing of the application. That request of the appellant was rejected by the State Government by its order dated 212.2001. The applicant being aggrieved by the order so passed by the State Government was before this Court in O.P.No.30812 of 2002, inter alia, questioning the correctness or otherwise of Ext.P4 order dated 212.2001. This Court by its judgment dated 112.2003 had quashed Ext.P4 order and had directed the State Government to reconsider Ext.P3 representation filed by the appellant and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

3. After the disposal of the aforesaid original petition, the State Government has passed yet another order dated 6.4.2004 (Ext.P5) rejecting the claim of the appellant for grant of the pensioner benefits under the provisions of the Pension Rules from the date of the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the freedom fighter is before us once again in W.P.(C) No.21680 of 2004.

4. The learnedSingle Judge relying upon the observations made by this Court in the case of State of Kerala v. G. Madhavikutty Amma, in W.A.No.1818 of 2006, and the observations made by the apex Court in the case of State of M.P. and another v. Devkinandan Maheshwari, (2003) 3 SCC 183, has rejected the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single judge the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal.

5. In the writ appeal, it is stated that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the matter is fully covered by the decision of this Court in W.A.No.1818 of 2006 and the dicta laid down by the apex Court in Devkinandan Maheshwaris case. The appellant also questions the vires of Rule 18 of the Pension Rules on the ground that the same is arbitrary.

6. We have heard Sri. K.G. Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

7. In W.A.No.1818 of 2006, the appellant was the widow of one late Achuthan Pillai who was a freedom fighter. He had filed application before the State Government for grant of freedom fighters pension and the said application was allowed by the State Government on 25th March, 2003 and even before the order could be passed, the freedom fighter, namely Achuthan Pillai had expired. Thereafter his wife after approaching the State Government had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, inter alia, contending that she is entitled for freedom fighters pension from the date of the application and not from the date of the order sanctioning the pension. The learned Single Judge had rejected the writ petition and that is how the petitioner in the writ petition had approached this Court in W.A.No.1818 of 2006. This Court relying upon the observations made in Devkinandan Maheshwaris case, has rejected the writ appeal.

8. In Devkinandan Maheshwaris case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation which arose under the provisions of the M.P. Swatantra Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972. In the said Nidhi Niyam, a rule had been incorporated, wherein it was said that the pension claims under the provisions of the Swatantra Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam can be granted only from the date of the sanction of the pension and not from the date of the ap