JUDGMENT

Manjulla Chellur, Ag.CJ Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner.

2. The party respondent approached the learned Single Judge, aggrieved by the intimation rejecting the claim for Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension ('SSS pension' for short) under the Scheme of 1980. The learned Single Judge at paragraphs 12 and 13 has indicated why the party respondent/writ petitioner must get dependant family pension. We have already held in a batch of cases (W.A.No.314 of 2011 & connected cases dated 22.06.2012) that as per the Scheme contemplated mere possession of Thamrapathra or recipient of Thamrapathra, would not entitle them to get SSS pension because neither in Sankunny's Judgment nor the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition to appeal pertaining to Sankunny's judgment of this Court have given any positive direction that recipient of Thamarapathra automatically would be entitled for SSS pension irrespective of the conditions contemplated in the Scheme by the Union of India. Even otherwise in Sankunny's case the Division Bench of this Court has said, the fact of receipt of Thamarapathra could also be on