IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 1069 of 2007(I) ---------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21925/2005 Dated 26/07/2007) .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:- --------------------------------------------------------- 1) STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2) DISTRICT COLLECTOR AS COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM FIGHTERS, OFFICE OF THE COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & ADDL.RESPONDENT:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) S.RAGHAVAN, PYTHODI PUTHENPURAYIL, NADUVATHU CHERRY, CHAVARA SOUTH, KARUNGAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT (DIED). Addl.2) SMT.GOMATHY, PYTHODI PUTHENPURAYIL, NADUVATHUCHERRY, CHAVARA SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. (Addl.R2 impleaded as per order in IA.NO.83/2008 dated 29.2.2008) BY SR.ADV.SRI.N.DHARMADAN SMT.D.P.RENU. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= RP.No.1069 of 2007 in WP(C).No.21925 of 2005-I ========================= Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This review petition is filed seeking to vacate direction issued in the judgment to sanction freedom fighters' pension with arrears from 19.11.2004 the date of Ext.P1. It is pointed out in the review petition that going by Rule 18 of the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme the pension sanctioned under the rules shall be payable from the date of issue of the sanction order. 2. It is true that Rule 18 provides for sanction of pension from the date of issue of the sanction order. But herein some more facts would be relevant to decide the issue. The petitioner in the writ petition is no more now. The application for grant of pension was earlier dismissed on the ground of delay, which was challenged in OP.No.1694/2001. Even though the original petition was dismissed on the ground of delay as per Ext.P1 judgment the RP.No.1069 of 2007. -: 2 :- Division Bench directed reconsideration of the application on merits after referring to the documents produced in the case and in the light of decisions of the Apex Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 2127) and in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India (AIR 2001 SC 3883). Practically the judgment was rendered after considering the matter on merits with a direction to pass fresh orders. Evidently the findings rendered by the Division Bench were binding on the review petitioners. But again they dismissed the application. In the impugned judgment the matter was considered in detail and it was held that the judgments of the Division Bench and the Apex Court were binding on the review petitioners. In these circumstances it was directed to grant pension atleast from the date of Ext.P1 judgment passed by the Division Bench. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents points out that the original petitioner died on 31.7.2007, four days after the judgment and the review petition itself has been filed against a dead person at a belated stage and RP.No.1069 of 2007. -: 3 :- therefore the review petition is not maintainable on that ground itself. 4. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that pursuant to the judgment the Government has sanctioned pension and the review petition is limited only to the question of payment of arrears. It is also pointed out that in Ext.P1 judgment the only direction was to consider the application and therefore the said date has no effect. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submission in the light of the facts already noticed. It is not a mere direction to reconsider the matter. There were binding observations on the judgments which could not have been ignored at that time. 5. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out that the Division Bench has granted three months time to pass final orders and therefore, at any rate, the pensioner can have the right only from the expiry of three months' period. Since the eligibility for grant of pension has been declared by the judgment and Ext.P7 stands quashed, the arrears shall be paid atleast from the date of RP.No.1069 of 2007. -: 4 :- Ext.P7. Once the order is quashed the party is entitled for payment from that date. The long period during which the writ petition was pending cannot deprive the fruits of the litigation to the writ petitioners. Having regard to the facts of the case, I modify the operative portion of the judgment to the limited extent that arrears shall be paid with effect from 11.3.2005, the date of Ext.P7. 6. Now that the original petitioner is no more and the widow and others are to get the amount due to the original petitioner, I direct the respondents in the writ petition (Review Petitioners herein) to pay the arrears within three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order along with the death certificate and the legal heirship certificate in original. The Review Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-