HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.22127 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is instituted by Smt. Yelmareddy Suryamma, W/o Late Sri Gopal Reddy, seeking grant of the `freedom fighters family pension’ from the initial date of the submission of the application instead of from 19.05.2010. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband has participated in the Liberation Struggle of the Nizam State of Hyderabad during the years 1947 and 1948. For want of knowledge, the husband of the petitioner did not apply for Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension and when the writ petitioner became aware of the scheme, she applied for it. Her case was placed before the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee headed by Sri Rajeswara Rao, in the year 1997 and the said committee recommended her case to the Central Government for grant of freedom fighters pension. However, no steps were taken thereon. On 26.11.2008, the State Government has recommended for grant of pension. However, the Central Government rejected her claim on 03.12.2009 on the ground that `Repala Border’ Camp is not one of those camps recognized for grant of pension. However, the State Government informed the Central Government on 22.12.2006 that Sri B.N. Reddy, former Member of Parliament, has already been recognized as the camp in-charge of the Suryapet, Jaggugudem and Repala during the Hyderabad Liberation Movement and he has informed that several people have carried out various activities from Repala and they were all known as members of Suryapet Dalam and that some of them also took training to use arms in and around the hills located nearby to Suryapet town for a couple of months and hence Sri B.N. Reddy requested to treat the camp’s name, in the verification- cum-entitlement report as Repala of Suryapet Revenue Sub-Division instead of Suryapet. Hence the State Government suggested to take into account the camp’s name as Repala of Suryapet Sub-Division and on that basis consider the claims of the applicant. Inspite of this communication of the State Government, the Central Government has erroneously rejected the petitioner’s claim on 03.12.2009 by setting out that Repala Border Camp is not one of the recognized camps for grant of pension. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P.No.481 of 2010 and this Court allowed the said writ petition on 03.02.2010 ordering for reconsideration of her case. Pursuant thereto, the Central Government granted Freedom Fighters Family Pension through their proceedings dated 19.05.2010 from 03.02.2010, instead of from the date of petitioner’s representation. Though the writ petitioner has submitted another representation on 11.08.2011 for grant of freedom Fighters Family Pension with effect from the initial date of submission of application, no orders were passed thereon. Hence, this writ petition is instituted seeking directions for grant of pension with effect from the date of application. 3. While, passing orders on 19.05.2010, it is stated that giving benefit of doubt, the claim of the petitioner for pension has been sanctioned with effect from 03.02.2010, the date on which this Court passed orders earlier in W.P.No.481 of 2010. It is further pointed out that, no evidence of husband’s underground suffering in the Border Camp during Hyderabad Liberation Movement has been produced by the applicant, but however, the State Government had recommended the claim on the basis of certificates given by other central freedom fighter pensioners. Therefore, the claim of the applicant has been considered based upon the recommendations of the State Government and those of the Screening Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters (SCEFF). 4. The Central Government has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. It is pointed out that initially the claims of persons who applied for pension based upon their sufferings in the Border Camps during Hyderabad Liberation Movement are not accepted as they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria under the `Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980’. However, with a view to consider such cases also, Special Screening Committee was constituted. Wherever the applicants have failed to fulfill the eligibility criteria by furnishing the stipulated documentary evidence in support of their claim, such claims can be considered by giving them the benefit of doubt and thus the case of the petitioner has been considered for grant of family pension by extending the benefit of such a doubt as the petitioner could not produce any primary evidence as prescribed under the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme relating to her husband’s sufferings in the border camp. Further, the State Government has also not substantiated the claim with reference to any official records, but however the State Government’s recommendation is based upon the Personal Knowledge Certificates (PKC) furnished by other freedom fighters. It is asserted that all cases where the benefit of doubt has been extended, the pension has been granted only prospectively. 5. It would be appropriate to first notice the salient features of the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, and subsequent constitution of the Special Screening Committee. The Government of India, during the Silver Jubilee Year of Indian Independence introduced a scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and in case they have already died, to their eligible dependants, with effect from 15.08.1972. This original scheme has been refined and liberalized thus, brining in “Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980” with effect from 01.08.1980. All those persons who participated in the freedom movement in some way or the other are not rendered eligible but only few categories of sufferers have been rendered eligible. Those who are rendered eligible for grant of pension under the scheme are: i. Martyrs, who laid down their lives either in action or in detention or subsequent to completion of the capital punishment imposed against them for participation in the freedom struggle; ii. Those who have suffered imprisonment for a minimum period of six months and those who suffered imprisonment of three months in case of women and members belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on account of participation in the freedom struggle; iii. Persons, on account of participation in freedom struggle, remained underground for a period of more than six months provided they are proclaimed as offenders, or those for whose arrest a reward was announced or of those against whom detention orders were issued but could not be served; iv. Those on account of participation in the freedom struggle, were interned in their home district or externed from their home district for a minimum period of six months; v. Persons whose property was confiscated or attached or sold due to participation in the freedom struggle; vi. Those who became permanently incapacitated either during firing that was ordered or Lathi charge ordered; vii. Those who have lost their Government job for participation in the freedom struggle provided they were not reinstated into service before expiry of two years from their initial date of dismissal or removal and they were not in receipt of benefits of pay and allowances for the said period; viii. Such of those, who were awarded punishment of a minimum of ten strokes of caning/flogging/whipping due to participation in the freedom struggle. 6. The eligible persons are required to produce relevant documents from official records or newspapers of the relevant time. The official records could be in the form of imprisonment/detention certificate from the jail authority concerned or the District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, the date of admission, the date of release, the relevant facts of the case and the reasons for the release. In case the relevant records are not available, the secondary evidence in the form of certificates issued by two co-prisoners who have proven jail suffering for a minimum of one year period and who were inmates of the jail along with the applicants, can be produced. However, if a sitting or a former M.P or M.L.A happens to issue a certificate, that was considered as sufficient evidence of the suffering of the claimant. Similarly, secondary evidence in the form of Personal Knowledge Certificates (PKC) from any prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering of a minimum of two years is also considered. Under the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, the application should be sent in duplicate to the Chief Secretary of the concerned State/Union Territory Administration and copy submitted to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Freedom Fighters Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. The claims would be processed by the Government of India only on receipt of verification and entitlement to pension report from the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned. 7. From a perusal of the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, it becomes clear that the credentials are required to be established by the applicants with reference to either primary or secondary evidence. These requirements have been found to be difficult to be produced by majority of those who participated in the integration of the erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad with the rest of the Indian Union. Therefore, the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs through their office Memorandum No.8/48/83-FF(P) dated 05.10.1983 announced the decision that the applications from such participants of the liberation struggle of the erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad be screened/scrutinized by a `Special Screening Committee (SSC)’ headed by Sri Govind Bhai Shroff of Aurangabad as Chairman and comprising of Sri Jagannath Rao Chanderki of Gulbarga District and Sri P. Thirumal Rao of Khammam District as members of the said committee. The Deputy Secretary in charge of the Freedom Fighters’ Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs has been made the Convenor of this Committee. The meetings of this Committee were required to be held at New Delhi or at such other convenient places as may be decided upon by the Committee. The applications of eligible persons will be initially scrutinized by the Ministry of Home Affairs and then placed before the said committee for their recommendations. The strength of the Special Screening Committee has been enlarged by adding five more members thereto through an order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 17.12.1996. The reconstituted committee is headed by Sri N. Giri Prasad and comprising of Sri Govind Bhai Shroff, Sri Kodati Narayana Rao, Sri V.P. Deulgaonkar, Sri Paga Pulla Reddy, Sri Ch. Rajeshwara Rao, Sri K.V. Keshavulu and Sri B.N. Reddy. By an order passed on 08.04.1997, the tenure of this Committee was extended up to 30.06.1997 and Sri N. Srinivasa Reddy has been included as an additional member of this Committee. Once again orders were passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 03.06.1997 appointing Sri Ch. Rajeshwara Rao as the Chairman of the committee, in view of the death of Sri N. Giri Prasad. On 28.02.2007, the Central Government had constituted a Committee of Officers to evolve mechanism and criteria to identify the freedom fighters who participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement and based on the recommendations of this Committee, it was decided to call for 100% re-verification of cases by the respective State Governments as the erstwhile Nizam State extended to regions which have formed part of States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra. It was also decided by the Government of India on 19.09.2007 / 10.10.2007 by their office memorandum to constitute a `Screening Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters (SCEFF)’ to scrutinize each such case and to render their considered opinion in the matter. It was also desired that the process of re-verification of the cases by the concerned State Government and the scrutiny of SCEFF would go on concurrently. This Screening Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters was constituted under the Chairmanship of Sri Konda Laxman Bapuji and comprised of Sri Dodda Narayan Rao, Sri Gowtama Rao, Sri Tirunagaru Gangadhar, Smt. Mallu Swarajyam, Sri G. Pichi Reddy and a representative each of the State Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra, not below the rank of Secretary to the State Government, and the Director/Deputy Director in the Freedom Fighters Records Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs, looking after the work relating to Hyderabad Liberation Movement. The terms of reference of this Committee are: i. The Screening Committee will scrutinize only such cases which have been re-verified by the respective State Government as per the recommendation of the Committee of Officers and which are placed before it by the Ministry of Home Affairs; ii. Only those persons who had participated in the Border Camps for a minimum period of six months and, had participated in the freedom struggle up to 15.09.1948, i.e., before the Police action in Hyderabad, will be treated as eligible for grant of pension. iii. In cases where a decision has already been taken by the Government either to grant pension or to reject the claim, if the recommendation of the Committee is at variance with the earlier decision, it will record reasons for such recommendation. 8. Subsequently, when Sri Konda Laxman Bapuji resigned as Chairman of the Screening Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters (SCEFF), it was reconstituted with Sri Boinapally Venkat Rama Rao as Chairperson and Sri Mandadi Ramchandra Reddy, Sri Mandapadu Satyanarayana, Sri Pasham Chandra Shekhar Reddy, Sri Shivlingappa S/o Basalingappa Patil of Gulbarga District, Karnataka and one eminent freedom fighter to be nominated by the Government of Maharashtra and a representative each of the State Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, not below the rank of Secretary to the State Government, and the Director/Deputy Secretary in the FFR Division in the Ministry of Home Affairs as other members. The terms of reference of this reconstituted SCEFF are almost the same as were the originally constituted committee. Thus, various steps have been taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure that the cases of the freedom fighters who have participated in the Nizam State Liberation Movement are scrutinized so as to enable pension to be granted, wherever the claim was found to be genuine. 9. When the Government of India did not favourably consider the claims of those, whose applications have been filed after the prescribed date in that behalf, the Supreme Court by its Judgment in Mukund Lal Bhandari Vs. Union of India[1], held that the Government stand in that regard is not justifiable, as those who participated in the freedom struggle either at the national level or in the erstwhile Nizam State, were scattered all over the country and most of them may be inhabiting in parts of the rural areas and most of them must have grown very old and above all the scheme has been introduced with a genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given their very best part of life for the sake of the country, and hence it ill-behoves the Government to raise pleas of limitation against such claims. In paragraph 8 of the said Judgment, as to the date that the benefit of the scheme should be extended from the date of claim or from the date, the required proof of eligibility of the pension is produced, it was accepted only partially. The Supreme Court has noticed that some of the claimants had made their applications either without necessary documentary proof or with insufficient proof. As it is unreasonable to expect that the freedom fighters and or their dependants would be readily in possession of the required documents and such documents have got to be secured either from the jail records or from persons who had been named in the scheme as competent to certify to the eligibility of the claimant, therefore, it was felt by the Supreme Court as unrealistic to expect the claimants to produce the necessary documents within a fixed time frame limit. Therefore, the Supreme Court felt that neither the date of the application nor the date on which the required proof is furnished should make any difference to the entitlement of the benefit under the scheme. Hence, once the application is made, even if it is not accompanied by the requisite material, the date on which it is made, should be accepted as if it is produced on the date of preferment of the claim, irrespective of the date on which the said proof of eligibility is furnished. In paragraph 11 of this Judgment, the following directions have been issued by the Supreme Court. “[a] The respondents should accept the applications of the petitioners irrespective of the date on 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 scrutinies 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 application, and the documents proof keeping in view the laudable and sacrosanct object of the Scheme. [c] The pension should he paid to the applicant front the date on which the original application is received whether the application is filed with or without the requisite evidence. The sanction of tile pension would, however, he subject to the requisite proof in support of the claim.” 10. It is only appropriate to notice that Mukund Lal Bhandari’s case has noticed the Judgments rendered earlier by it in Duli Chand Vs. Union of India[2] and Surja Vs. Union of India[3]. Subsequently the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the question as to whether the grant of freedom fighters pension on the footing of the “benefit of doubt” should be accorded prospectively, that is from the date on which the pension was sanctioned or from an earlier date namely the date of the application itself, in Union of India Vs. Ganesh Chandra Dolai[4] and in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Judgment rendered on 24.04.1995, the Court held as under: “4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that he ratio in Duli Chand case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Duli Chand case this Court had by the order dated 16-07-1990 directed the Government of India to pay pension to the petitioners therein w.e.f 1-8-1980. It was specifically mentioned in the order that all the 41 petitioners had produced the relevant documents supporting their claim and keeping in view the facts of these cases pension was directed to be given w.e.f 1980. In this case the Government of India has categorically stated that the respondents were given benefit of doubt and as such the pension can only be given from the date of the order. 5. Keeping in view the documents produced by the respondents before the Government, the respondents have been rightly given pension by the Government of India from the date of the order. We allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the order of the Government of India whereunder pension has been given to the respondents from the date of the order of the Government of India. No costs.” 11. Once again, the Supreme Court reiterated this very principle in Union of India Vs. M.R. Chelliah Thevar[5], decided on 30.04.1996 wherein the issue is concluded in the following manner: “Heard counsel for both sides. On behalf of the union of India strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24th April, 1995. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on an earlier judgment of this Court in Muktmd Lal Bhandari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1993 Supp. (3) 2, as well as the decision in Amarnath Malhotra and Ors. v. Union of India dated 19th October, 1994. The distinction, however, is that in the case relied on by the Union of Inida, the respondents were granted the benefit under the policy not because it was a clear case of the respondents being freedom fighters but because benefit of doubt was given and hence the pension was restricted from the date of the order and not the date of application. In the two cases relied on by the respondents, there was no question of the benefit having been founded on a finding of fact which did not clearly establish that the petitioners were freedom fighters but on the liberal ground of giving them the benefit of doubt and restricting it from the date of order. We are therefore of the opinion that there is a distinction between the decision relied on by, the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the Union of India and two decisions relied on by the respondent. In the instant case, since the benefit of doubt was given and the status of freedom fighter was recognised on that basis, the case would be covered by the first mentioned decision dated 24th April, 1995 (Union of India v. Ganesh Chandra Dolai and Ors.)” 12. Once again, the Supreme Court had reiterated this very principle in Government of India Vs. K.V. Swaminathan[6], in paragraph 3 in the following terms: “3. In view of the above settled legal position, though the respondent was not entitled to the pension as a freedom- fighter, he was given the relief on the basis of benefit of doubt. Therefore, he is entitled to the pension only from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. We are informed that pursuant to the order of the High Court, the amount has been released. Under this circumstance, the appellant is directed to deduct the paid amount proportionately from the amount payable in every month, instead of asking him to refund the amount.” 13. Once again, the Supreme Court had reiterated the same principle in Union of India Vs. Kaushalaya Devi[7], in the following words in paragraph 5 of the said Judgment. “5. In the present case, we have perused the record and found that it is stated therein that the claim was allowed on the basis of secondary nature of evidence. In other words, the claim was not allowed on the basis of jail certificate produced by the claimant but on the basis of oral statement of some other detenue. Hence, we are of the opinion that the pension should be granted from the date of the order and not from the date of the application.” 14. It will be important to notice that the Supreme Court clearly pointed out the distinguishing features between Mukund Lal Bhandari’s case and the rest of the cases noticed supra. 15. It, therefore, emerges from a careful analysis of the legal principles set out by the Supreme Court that, wherever the claim for a freedom fighters pension is based upon the proof of the eligibility criteria set out in Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, the claimant will have to be granted freedom fighters pension from the date he submits the application, though the actual proof may have been furnished subsequent to the date of the application. On the other hand, wherever the freedom fighters pension is ordered to be sanctioned extending the benefit of doubt on the strength of the secondary evidence produced by the claimant, in all such cases the pension will be sanctioned only from the date of the order and not from the date on which the application is submitted. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon the Judgment rendered by this Court on 02.07.2010 in Guda Taramani Vs. Union of India[8], wherein a learned single Judge of this Court directed the Union of India to reconsider the petitioner’s case therein for sanction of pension from 27.09.1989, for the first time when her husband has submitted the application. It is only appropriate to notice that in the above case the Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh has submitted a verification report based upon the Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) issued by the former M.L.A. and certificates issued by the central freedom fighter pensioners who were recognized as border camp in-charges and also based upon the recommendation of the Collector. 17. As was noticed supra, in the instant case, family pension