Important points:
In the case of a primary evidence alone the arrears would be payable from the date of application and in so far as secondary evidence, arrears has to be paid from the date of order. If it is payable from the date of order, it would go without saying that, the date when the positive direction of sanctioning pension is passed.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

This intra court appeal is filed against the judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 39384 of 2016 dated 24.07.2018, whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, by observing thus:

“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 Devi's case (supra), Kashiswar Jana's case (supra), Sawinder Kaur's case (supra), 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 petitioner's counsel has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 8, 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 Singh's case (supra), 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 petitioner's contentions cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed.”

2. Facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant/writ petitioner is a veteran freedom fighter, aged 94. He filed W.P.(C) No.39384 of 2016 for a direction to the respondent to disburse the arrears of freedom fighters' pension due to him with 12% interest, with effect from the date of receipt of Exhibit-P4 application submitted by him on 06.11.2000. As per the judgment dated 10.06.2009 in W.P.(C) No.39646 of 2003, appellant was found to be a freedom fighter, eligible for both, pension under the State Scheme and under Swatantrata Sainik Samman (SSS) Pension Scheme, 1980. His participation in Quit India movement and other suffering, evidenced by necessary certificates, were elaborately considered and discussed by the writ court in Exhibit-P1 judgment dated 10.06.2009 and earlier judgment referred to above, which was rendered, when he challenged the order passed by this court in O.P. No.34941/2002, specifically directing to consider his case, taking a liberal view, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 2127). Hence, he has a vested right. Since no appeal has been filed by the respondents against the said judgment, his right to get the benefits of Mukund Lal Bhandari case (cited supra) was kept alive, notwithstanding the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

3. Appellant has further stated that the Central Government have considered his claim and issued pension payment order (Exhibit-P3) on 23.11.2011, granting central pension under the scheme. Appella