IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 1978 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11033/2008 Dated 06/08/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC ----------------------------------- UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC ------------------------------------------------- 1. SMT. SARASAMMA, W/O. LATE KRISHNAN KARUNAKARAN, THOTTATHUSERIL, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 525. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH FOR R1 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MEERA FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2011, ALONG WITH WA.4 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1978 of 2010 & W.A.No. 4 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. These Writ Appeals are filed aggrieved by the judgments of the learned Single Judge directing payment of pension to the party respondents under the Swatantratha Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, framed by the Government of India. By the impugned judgments, the learned Single Judge ordered payment of pension from the date of the applications made by the respective writ petitioners. 2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Kaushalaya Devi [(2007) 9 SCC 525], even if their eligibility for payment of pension is accepted, the respondents are eligible for payment of pension only from the date of the judgment and not from the date of application. 3. We heard learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and we have also gone through the judgment of the Apex Court in Kaushalaya Devi's case (supra) and the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1993 of 2010 relied on by the appellants. WA.1978/10 & 4/11 2 4. The pleadings in these Writ Appeals show that the claims were sought to be substantiated by relying on evidence which has been described by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment as secondary evidence. If that position is accepted, in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, which has been followed by this Court in W.A.No.1993 of 2010, payment could be ordered to be made only from the date of the judgment. Therefore, to that extent, the judgments of the learned Single Judge deserve to be modified and we do so. 5. Therefore, these Writ Appeals are disposed of modifying the directions in the judgment to the extend that payment as ordered by the learned Single Judge will be only from the date of judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. 6. Such payments shall be disbursed to the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Appeals are disposed of as above. Sd/- J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vgs /true copy/ PS TO JUDGE