ORDER The present application has been filed to review the order dated 19.1.94 passed in CWJC. No. 10674/93 by the division Bench of this Court, to which I was a member, directing the respondents to pay the freedom fighter pension amount to the opposite party from the date of application. It appears that the respondents moved before the apex Court against the aforesaid order of this Court in SLP No. 4512/95 and the Special Leave Petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to move the High Court for necessary clarification in this regard and thereafter the review application has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the opposite party is entitled to the payment of freedom fighter pension from the date of the order which was issued on 27th October, 1989 and not from the date of application. In support of his submission he has relied upon a judgment of the apex court passed in union of India Mr. M.R. challiah Thever, S.L.P. No. 25053/95. In this case from the perusal of Annexure -2 to the counter affidavit it appears that the freedom righter pension was given to the opposite party after the verification of the record. It was not the case where benefit under the policy was given on the ground of benefit of doubt. The judgment of the apex Court relied upon by the petitioner shows that in that case the apex court has noticed distinction in the cases relied upon by the parties i.e. Mukund Lal Bhandari Vr. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 2127 and the division Bench judgment of the apex court disposed of on 24th April 1995. The relevant distinction pointed out by the apex court is as follows; "The distinction, however, is that in the case relied on by the Union of India 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 respondent 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 fighter 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 or 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 recognised on that basis, the case would be covered by the first mentioned decision dated 24th April, 95 (Union of India. Vs. Chandra Dolai & ors)." From perusal of the aforesaid judgment it appears that there is clear distinction between the two disposed of cases, namely, the case where the benefit, under the freedom fighter scheme, is given to the person by giving benefit of doubt and in that case pension was restricted from the date of the order and the case where the pension has been given after a clear finding which established that the person concerned was a freedom fighter in which case pension has to be paid from the date of application. In the present case, from perusal of the Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit it appears that the application was allowed on merit. As such we are of the view that the order was rightly passed that opposite party is entitled to freedom fighter pension from the date of application i.e. 5.9.81. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to review the order dated 19.1.94 and as such the review application is dismissed. Application Dismissed.