IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 10069 of 2005 BETWEEN: 1 Thummala Remachandra Reddy S/o. Kista Reddy @ Anantha Reddy, R/o. Mettupally, Sankarapuram Mandal Karimnagar District. 2 Madishetti Bhumaiah S/o. Veeraiah, R/o. Kothapalli, Bhimdevarapalli Mandal Karimnagar District. 3 Pandilla Rajaiah S/o. Rajalingam, R/o. Godesal, Sidapur Mandal Karimnagar District. 4 Vanga Komaraiah S/o. Venkataiah, R/o. Dandepalli Village, Yelakathurthi Mandal Karimnagar District. 5 Gaddam Rajamma W/o. Late G. Rajaiah, R/o. Dandepalli Village, Yelakathurthi Mandal Karimnagar District. 6 Bathini Gouraiah S/o. Yerraiah @ Yerra Veeraiah, R/o. Bavupet, Yalakathurthi Mandal Karimnagar District. 7 Bathineni Venkatamma W/o. Late Venkat Narayana R/o. Bavupet, Yalakathurthi Mandal Karimnagar District. 8 Sri Devulapalli Kanakaiah S/o. Chandraiah R/o. Dandepalli Village, Yalakathurthi Mandal Karimnagar District. 9 Perumalla Rajaiah S/o. Veeraiah, R/o. Dandepalli Village, Yalakathurthi Mandal Karimnagar District. 10 Kamera Yellaiah S/o. Narsaiah, R/o. Dandepalli Village, Yalakathurthi Mandal Karimnagar District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Union Secretary to the Govt., of India Ministry of Home Affairs (Freedom Fighters Division), Lok Nayak Bhavan Khan Market New Delhi. 2 The Secretary Govt. of A.P., Revenue Dept., (Freedom Fighter Division), Secretariat Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 1st respondent in not granting pension to the petitioners under Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980 from the date of their applications but only granting pension from 2003 and 2004 as arbitrary, illegal, void abinitio besides principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to grant the pension to the petitioners under Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980 from the 1986 or alternatively 1996 till 2004 forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SMT. Y.B. SARASWATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVEUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners submits that they have been granted Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension vide various orders passed in 2003 and 2004 by giving the benefit of doubt from the date of grant of sanction orders. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as admittedly the petitioners have been sanctioned the Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension, they are entitled to sanction from the date on which the original application is received by the Government along with requisite evidence but not from the date of sanction. He further submits that the Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND LAL BHANDARI v. UNION OF INDIA[1] held that freedom fighters are entitled to sanction of pension from the date of application received by the Government. 3. Counter has been filed stating that as per the scheme and as held by the Supreme Court in MUKUND LAL’s case (1 Supra) the freedom fighters are entitled to pension from the date of application on which the same has been received by the Government along with requisite evidence but the Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. GANESH CHANDRA DOLAI arising out of SLP (C) 2325 of 1995 dated 24.04.1995 held that wherever pension was sanctioned under the said scheme giving benefit of doubt the pension is to be given from the date of the order in cases where pension was given on benefit of doubt. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Government placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of GOVERNMENT OF INDIA v. K. SWAMINTHAN [2] wherein the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari (1 Supra) and subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court have been considered and on a perusal of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court clearly held that such orders of the Government, wherever the pension was sanctioned on the basis of benefit of doubt from the date of order but not from the date of application, are legal and valid. 5. In the instant case, a perusal of the sanction orders go to show that the sanction was made by giving benefit of doubt only and none of the petitioners questioned the said orders of the Government sanctioning the pension by giving benefit of doubt. If that be so, I am of the opinion that the law laid down by the Apex Court in K. Swaminathan’s case (2 Supra) applies to the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners are entitled to pension from the date of sanction order as they were granted pension by giving benefit of doubt. Therefore, I do not see any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 28, 2008 DSK [1] AIR 1993 SC 2127 [2] (1997) 10 SCC 190