JUDGEMENT Devinder Gupta, J. :- The short point involved in the writ petition is as to from which date, the petitioner ought to have been allowed the pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972, which was re-named as Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner took part in the freedom struggle of the country from 1946 till the merger of Bilaspur in the Indian Union in the year 1948. It is also not disputed that no application was made by the petitioner for grant of pension before 1972 Scheme was liberalised and re-named as Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, which be come effective from 1st August, 1980. The application for grant of pension by the petitioner was submitted on 30th July, 1981 claiming that he had been interned by the verbal orders issued by the Ruler of Bilaspur and was subjected to such internment for a period of more than six months. 2. The petitioners request did not find favour with respondent No. 1 despite number of representations submitted by him, which compelled him in approaching this Court when he filed CWP No. 510 of 1988. The said writ petition was decided on 21st August, 1990 holding that the petitioner had prima facie produced evidence to show that he was a freedom fighter and had suffered internment for the requisite period. Respondent No. 1 was directed to re-consider the petitioners case in light of the certificates and to take decision within a period of four months. Requisite decision was not taken within the time allowed by this Court, which necessitated the petitioner in knocking the doors of this Court again, when he filed Contempt Petition (C) No. 15 of 1991. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, a decision was taken by the respondents, which was conveyed to the petitioner through letter dated 1st July, 1991 stating that pension had been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 26th December, 1990. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of on 8th August, 1991. 3. It is the petitioners case that since 1980 Scheme became operative from 1st August, 1980, he ought to have been granted the benefit of pension on or before from 1st August, 1980 and not from 26th December, 1990. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of on 8th August, 1991. 3. It is the petitioners case that since 1980 Scheme became operative from 1st August, 1980, he ought to have been granted the benefit of pension on or before from 1st August, 1980 and not from 26th December, 1990. Consequently, direction has been sought for releasing of the pension w.e.f. 1st August, 1980 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 4. In the reply filed by respondent No. 1 on the affidavit of Mr. S. K. Jain, it has been contended that the petitioner cannot be granted pension w.e.f. 1st August, 1980 and was granted pension from 26th December, 1990 since he was in a position to substantiate his claim of sufferings by producing acceptable documentary evidence only on 26th December, 1990. It is also stated by respondent No. 1 that in cases where freedom fighters had claimed sufferings, namely, externment/internment on the verbal orders of the Ruler of Bilaspur, a decision was taken by the Minister Incharge on 23rd October, 1989 that in such cases production of certificate issued by the then Superintendent of Police/Minister would be considered as good evidence since the official documentary evidence of sufferings would not be available. Accordingly, it is stated that in case 26th December, 1990 is not to be considered to be the date from which pension is to be accorded, in that case pension can be directed to be paid to the petitioner only from 23rd December, 1989, when policy decision was taken by the Minister Incharge for accepting certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, as good evidence in place of other official documents. The fact is not disputed that application otherwise was submitted by the petitioner on 30th July, 1981 praying for grant of pension on the ground that. he had suffered during the freedom struggle internment for a period of more than six months on the basis of verbal orders of the Ruler. 5. The narration of the above facts would make it clear that though the application was made by the petitioner on 30th July, 1981, no decision was taken thereupon by the first respondent. he had suffered during the freedom struggle internment for a period of more than six months on the basis of verbal orders of the Ruler. 5. The narration of the above facts would make it clear that though the application was made by the petitioner on 30th July, 1981, no decision was taken thereupon by the first respondent. The decision was taken only when petitioners Writ Petition No. 510/88 was decided and respondent No. 1 was directed to take fresh decision in the light of the material produced by the petitioner, namely, certificate in proof of his having been interned for more than six months. The evidence so adduced by the petitioner was accepted by respondent No. 1 and pension has been sanctioned from the date when such proof was accepted by the respondents, namely, 26th December, 1990. Now the stand of respondent No. 1 is that since policy decision was taken by the Minister Incharge of accepting certificate of Superintendent of Police/Minister on 23rd October, 1989, therefore, the pension should be accorded from that date and not from any date prior thereto. To this stand of respondent No. 1, the petitioners stand is that since 1980 Scheme became operative from 1st August, 1980, pension should be allowed from that date. 6. The question as to from which date the pension should be granted is no more res integra now in view of the judgment in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, (1993) 3 JT (SC) 342 : (1993 AIR SCW 2508). A question had arisen in the case before the Supreme Court as to whether, notwithstanding the date on which the application itself is made, the claimant should be entitled to the benefit of pension with effect from an earlier date or from any other subsequent date when proof of actual suffering is submitted or accepted. The Court held that (at p. 2515 of AIR) : "..... the pension under the scheme should be made payable only from the date on which the application is made whether the application is accompanied by the necessary proof of eligibility or not. The pension should, of course, be sanctioned only after the required proof is produced." 7. The Court held that (at p. 2515 of AIR) : "..... the pension under the scheme should be made payable only from the date on which the application is made whether the application is accompanied by the necessary proof of eligibility or not. The pension should, of course, be sanctioned only after the required proof is produced." 7. In coming to the conclusion, the Court took notice of the purpose of the scheme and the object sought to be achieved and negatived the contention on behalf of the Union of India that it should be granted from the date when proof is submitted or accepted. The claimants arguments were also turned down that it should be made available with retrospective date, namely, date of coming into operation of the scheme. The first reason assigned is that no doubt, in view of the object of the scheme to benefit the freedom fighters it should be made available from the date when the scheme came into operation but due to the historical background, the true spirit behind the scheme as also its object, it cannot be made available from that date. The spirit of scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifice made, it would be contrary to spirit to convert it into some kind of a programme for compensation. The scheme should retain its high objective with which it is motivated, namely, to assist and to honour. The other reasons taken note of are (1993 AIR SCW 2508 at p. 2515) : ". . . . . Secondly, and this is equally important to note, since we are by this decision marking the benefit of the scheme available irrespective of the date on which the application is made, it would not be advisable to extend the benefit retrospectively. Lastly, the pension under the present scheme is not the only benefit made available to the freedom fighters or their dependants. The preference in employment, allotment of accommodation and in admission to schools and colleges to their kith and kin etc. are also the other benefits which have been made available to them for quite sometime now." 8. Lastly, the pension under the present scheme is not the only benefit made available to the freedom fighters or their dependants. The preference in employment, allotment of accommodation and in admission to schools and colleges to their kith and kin etc. are also the other benefits which have been made available to them for quite sometime now." 8. The relevant date accordingly from which pension is to be allowed has to be the date of the receipt of the original application submitting the claim for pension and not any other date, namely, the date when scheme became operative or on which decision is taken by respondent No. 1 to accord sanction after accepting the proof submitted. For the same reasons as have been noticed in Mukund Lal Bhandaris case (1993 AIR SCW 2508) (supra) by the Supreme Court in holding so, the date on which the policy decision was taken by the Minister Incharge that instead of the type of proof or evidence, as is notified in the scheme, some other type of evidence would be acceptable to substantiate the claim, should be the date for awarding pension cannot be said to be the relevant date. 9. Applying the ratio of the judgment in Mukund Lal Bhandaris case (1993 AIR SCW 2508) (supra), we also hold that respondent No. 1 was not right in allowing pension to the petitioner from the date when substituted proof, as per the policy approved by the Minister concerned was accepted. It ought to have been allowed from the date of receipt of application, namely, 30th July, 1981, which is not in dispute. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and hold the petitioner to be entitled to freedom fighters pension under 1980 scheme on and from the date of submitting the application, namely, 30th July, 1981 and direct respondent No. 1 to work out the arrears of pension and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of four months from today. 10. As regards the petitioners second prayer made in the writ petition for grant of other benefits available to the petitioner under the Scheme for the Grant of Financial Assistance by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Freedom Fighters of Himachal Pradesh, 1985, it is the case of respondent No. 2 that the petitioner submitted his representation only on 27th August, 1991, though the scheme became operative from April, 1985. Consequently, we also direct respondent No. 2 to grant the requisite benefits under the said scheme to the petitioner from the date of the receipt of the petitioners representation dated 27th August, 1991, within a period of four months from today. 11. No costs. Order accordingly.