The main legal point established in the judgment is that pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme should be paid from the date of receipt of the application, especially when supported by primary evidence.

The issue involved in this writ petition is whether the pension under the 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme' promulgated by the Central Government is payable with effect from the date of receipt of the application or with effect from the date of passing the order or the Judgment, as the case may be.

2. The factual matrix is as follows:

The husband of the petitioner was a participant in the 'Kavumbai Movement' which was declared as a freedom struggle only on 20-01-1998. In connection with the freedom struggle as above, the petitioner's husband happened to undergo confinement for a period of more than 6 months. As a matter of fact, the husband of the petitioner who took the last breath on 29-08-1982, was infact charge sheeted for various offences i.e., under Section 147, 148, 332 & 307, I.P.C and was remanded to jail on 28-01-1947. He was convicted by the Special First Class Magistrate's Court, Tellicherry on 14-06-1947. The confinement continued till 16-08-1948 and it was in different jails (Central Jail, Cannanore and Central Prison, Vellore). The factual aspects regarding the confinement, as certified by the concerned jail authorities and as discussed in the opening paragraph of Ext.P4 judgment dated 09-03-2010 in W.P (C) No.33069/2009 do not stand disputed.

3. Taking note of the sufferings of the husband of the petitioner and considering the eligibility to obtain pension under the Kerala Freedom Fighter's Pension Rules, 1971, the same was granted to him till 29-08-1982; after which the pension was granted to his widows as per Ext.P3 order dated 27-10-1983. One of the two widows expired on 29-04-2000 and thereupon, the State Government granted pension to the Petitioner, the surviving widow.

4. The fact that the Central Government had declared 'Kavumbai Movement' as a part of the freedom struggle, as per order dated 20-01-1998 for the purpose of granting pension under Ext.P1 Scheme stands admitted. Since the petitioner's husband satisfied the conditions prescribed under the Scheme, Ext.P2 application was preferred in April 1998, but since nothing transpired for 11 years, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P (C) No.33069/2009 which culminated in Ext.P4 Judgment declaring the eligibility of the petitioner to receive the pension under the Central Scheme. However, taking note of the submission that the State Government was still to forward recommendation to the Central Government, appropriate directions were given in this regard and the matter was disposed of to have it finalized as specified, within the prescribed time.

5. Inspite of the specific direction, it was not complied by the State, which compelled the petitioner who is an octogenarian to approach this Court again by filing a contempt petition, which was closed by this Court as per Judgment dated 12-08-2010, on reporting compliance. But then it was the turn of the Central Government, who also chose to sleep over the same, when the petitioner filed another contempt petition against the authorities of the Central Government. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Ext.P6 order dated 03-11-2010 was passed granting pension with effect from the date of the Judgment and the factual position was brought to the notice of the Court. The Petitioner also agitated the matter stating that the pension was granted only with effect from the date of the Judgment and not with effect from the date of receipt of the application; which contention was not analysed or dealt with by the Court and the contempt petition was closed as per order dated 09-11-2010, holding that, if the petitioner was aggrieved of Ext.P6 order, it was to be challenged separately. Hence this writ petition.

6. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit referring to various provisions of the Scheme: It is contended that, by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Scheme and also the judgments rendered by this Court and also by the Apex Court, the petitioner is not entitled