JUDGMENT :

Ravi V. Malimath, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4418 of 2015, titled Smt. Brahmi Devi versus Union of India and others, directing the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 04.04.1974, the respondents-Union of India have filed this appeal.

2. The writ petitioner is the widow of the deceased Sh. Dhani Ram. He served in the Dogra Regiment as a Sepoy till 1946. During his service, he participated in World War-II by joining the Indian Army from 1939 to 1945. He was awarded the Pacific Star, the Defence Medal and the War Medal. He alongwith similarly placed persons were declared as freedom fighters of the Nation.

3. In 1973, the State of Himachal Pradesh issued a letter to award Tamrapatras to the freedom fighters in the Districts of Bilaspur, Mandi, Hamirpur and Kullu. The petitioner's husband Sh. Dhani Ram's name was at Serial No. 37 alongwith one another freedom fighter Sh. Lashkari Ram (Lance Naik), who appeared at Serial No. 12. On 15.08.1973, Tamrapatra was awarded to Sh. Dhani Ram. That he was a freedom fighter, was acknowledged by the Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur and he was also issued an Identity Card, which is part and parcel of the writ papers. The request of Sh. Dhani Ram for grant of pension was not considered by the State. He went on making representations. Unfortunately, he died on 02.05.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner, his widow, has been pursuing his claim. Since the claim was not acceded to, by the respondents, the instant writ petition was filed. It was contended therein, that the petitioner's husband being a freedom fighter is entitled for grant of pension. That he alongwith Sh. Lashkari Ram being a freedom fighter is entitled to the same relief as has been granted to Sh. Lashkari Ram. The said Sh. Lashkari Ram (Lance Naik) was awarded pension w.e.f. 04.04.1974, whereas the same was denied to the husband of the writ petitioner.

4. Respondent No. 4-Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur before the learned Single Judge disputed the claim. He has stated that Sh. Dhani Ram never approached the said respondent for grant of freedom fighter benefits. That Identity Card was issued to him on the basis of the "Citizen" by the State Government. That he received an e-mail in the year 2014 seeking benefits. However, it is admitted that Sh. Lashkari Ram was declared as freedom fighter and pension was being granted to him.

5. Respondent No. 3, the Chief Secretary to the State of Himachal Pradesh filed a separate reply. He admitted that Sh. Dhani Ram was serving at Dogra Regiment of the British Army for the relevant period of time. However, it is stated that no application was made for grant of any benefits.

6. The Union of India submitted before the learned Single Judge that no pension under "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme" has been granted to petitioner's husband during his life time. As per the revised guidelines issued on 6th August, 2014, the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable and cannot be granted.

7. The learned Single Judge who considered the contentions, concluded that proper relief should be granted. The Identity Card issued to Sh. Dhani Ram as a freedom fighter was considered. The admission that the Tamrapatra was issued to him was considered. Since the person who fought alongwith Sh. Dhani Ram was granted pension w.e.f. 04.04.1974, the learned Single Judge directed that the petitioner should also be granted pension w.e.f. 04.04.1974 among other directions. Questioning the same, the instant appeal has been filed.

8. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the appellants submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. He contends that the grant of pension can only be with effect from the date of the application. He. relies on paras 5 & 6 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (1993) S