ORDER 1. DELAY CONDONED. 2. LEAVE GRANTED. 3. HEARD PARTIES. 4. IN THIS CASE FREEDOM FIGHTERS PENSION WAS GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF HER HUSBAND. HOWEVER, THE PENSION WAS GRANTED ONLY FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE WENT BACK TO THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT BY AN ORDER DATED 29-11-2001 SET ASIDE THE ORDER GRANTING PENSION ONLY FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. THE HIGH COURT DIRECTED THAT PENSION HAS TO BE GRANTED KEEPING IN VIEW THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF MUKUND LAL BHANDARI V. UNION OF INDIA1. 5. THE RESPONDENT FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THIS ORDER WHICH ALSO CAME TO BE DISMISSED BY AN ORDER DATED 25-11-2002. 6. IN SPITE OF THIS, PENSION IS STILL BEING GRANTED ONLY FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. IT IS BEING REFUSED FROM THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE TOOK OUT CONTEMPT PETITION WHICH HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7. THE ONLY REASON GIVEN TO US FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE HIGH COURT ORDER IS THAT THE RULES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF M.P. V. DEVKINANDAN MAHESHWARI2 PROVIDE THAT PENSION IS PAYABLE ONLY FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION. 8. IN OUR VIEW, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE RESPONDENT TO ACT CONTRARY TO A SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF A COURT. AT THE HIGHEST, THE RESPONDENT CAN APPLY FOR A VARIATION OR A CLARIFICATION OF THE ORDER. IF THE CLARIFICATION/VARIATION IS REFUSED, THEN THE ONLY REMEDY WOULD BE TO FILE AN APPEAL. IF ULTIMATELY THE COURT DECIDES AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, THE RESPONDENT IS BOUND TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER OF THIS COURT. 9. IN THIS CASE NO APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE FOR CLARIFICATION OR VARIATION OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 29-11-2001. THE RESPONDENT HAS CHOSEN NOT TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER DATED 29-11-2001. STRICTLY SPEAKING THERE IS, THEREFORE, CONTEMPT. BUT CONSIDERING THE LATER DECISION OF THIS COURT, WE PERMIT THE RESPONDENT TO APPLY TO THE COURT FOR VARIATION OF ITS EARLIER ORDER WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS FROM TODAY. SUCH APPLICATION, IF MADE, WILL BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERIT. THE RESPONDENT HAS CHOSEN NOT TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER DATED 29-11-2001. STRICTLY SPEAKING THERE IS, THEREFORE, CONTEMPT. BUT CONSIDERING THE LATER DECISION OF THIS COURT, WE PERMIT THE RESPONDENT TO APPLY TO THE COURT FOR VARIATION OF ITS EARLIER ORDER WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS FROM TODAY. SUCH APPLICATION, IF MADE, WILL BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERIT. IF THE COURT REFUSES TO CORRECT OR VARY THE ORDER, THE RESPONDENT WILL PAY AS PER THAT ORDER I.E. FROM THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION. 10. THE APPEAL STANDS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.