1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5104/2009 Bhagwan Sahay Kanoongo Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date of order : 21.08.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Kamal Kant Sharma for Mr. B.L.Gupta for petitioner. Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Addl. Govt. Counsel for State. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an application for pensionary benefits under the Rajasthan Swatantrata Sainani Pension Rules, 1959 from the date of application. This Court in a Writ Petition No. 476/2008 titled as Manik Chand Kothari Vs. The State of Raj. & anr. decided on February 04, 2009 has held that the relevant date of pension is the date of application. In this particular case, the application was given on 29th of September 1987 and the petitioner was granted the pension from the subsequent date i.e. 31.05.2006. Counsel for the State has not disputed the said judgment. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows :- “The submission of the petitioner is that the date of filing of the application has been treated by the government as the relevant date in other similarly situated cases. The petitioner has also cited the example of one Lal Ram S/o Santoka. The Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Reported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 2 in para 11, has held that the pension should be paid to the applicant from the date of receipt of the original 2 application. This Court has also followed the said order while deciding the case of Sant Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1536/2005 decided on 28.03.2006) reported in 2006(4) RDD 1938 (Raj.), and passed the following order in identical cases :- “...................................... 9. In case before the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), while rejecting the arguments of payment of pension prospectively, Freedom Fighters pension Scheme of 1972 was under consideration wherein some of the applications said to have been filed after expiry of the time but Hon'ble Supreme Court after consideration of entire facts and circumstances as well as aim and object of the pension scheme, has held that the application filed after expiry of time be entertained and the same was required to be expeditiously disposed of and further it was held that the pension should be paid to the applicants from the date of original application irrespective of the fact of other requirements. Para 11 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :- “11. We decline to go into the facts of the individual petitioners in this petition and direct the respondents as follows :- (a) The respondents should accept the applications of the petitioners irrespective of the date of which they are made. The applications received hereafter should also be entertained without raising the plea that they are beyond the prescribed date. (b) The respondents should scrutinize every application and the evidence produced in support of the claim and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months of the receipt of the months of the receipt of the application,keeping in view the laudable and sacrosanct object of the Scheme. (c) The pension should be paid to the applicant from the date on which the original application is received whether the application is filed with or without the requisite evidence. The sanction of the pension would, however, be subject to the requisite proof in support of the claim.” (emphasis supplied) 10. Although the said judgment is of the pension Scheme, 1972 wherein also no specific provision for 3 payability of the date of pension has been quoted and the same is the position in the Scheme of 1980 and, therefore, the same would apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. Even after placing of the order of pension passed in the year 1990 and payment from the year 1988 of Lalaram, the respondents have not been able to controvert the same. I have also gone through the said documents and to me there appears to be no reason to distinguish the case of the present petitioner from the case of Lalaram. Thus, the case of Lalaram is identical to the case of the present petitioner. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to make payment of arrears of pension to the petitioner from 1.1.1988 to 16.07.1997 as revised from time to time within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” The counsel for the respondents has not disputed the aforesaid judgment. He further submits that appropriate order may be passed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to make the payment of pension with effect from date of application i.e. 03.10.1989 and the arrears of the same from 03.10.1988 to 01.05.2003 shall be paid to him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.” Accordingly, the petitioner is also granted the same relief and is entitled for arrears of pension from 29th of September 1987 to 31st of May 2006 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA),J. Gandhi 101