ORDER The petitioners who were sanctioned freedom fighters pension under "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980" (for short 'the Scheme') by the 1st respondent filed this writ petition for a mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not granting the pension from the date of their applications under the Scheme as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioners who had participated in the freedom movement during the years 1947-48 for liberation of erstwhile Nizam State, by separate orders, were granted provisional pension subject to review by the President from 'the date of approval of the competent authority'. The 1st petitioner was granted provisional pension in the year 2004 with effect from 21.8.2003, 2nd petitioner was granted with effect from 21.8.2003 and 3rd petitioner was granted on 23.7.2004 with effect from 5.5.2004. No material has been placed on record in respect of the 4th petitioner. The case of the petitioners is that they are entitled to be granted pension from 1980 with effect from the dates when they applied for grant of pension. In support of their claim reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2. 3. The petition was admitted on 30.4.2009 and on 9.4.2009 interim directions were issued to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of arrears of pension from the date of applications till the date of grant of pension in WPMP No.9829 of 2009. 4. The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioners were granted freedom fighters pension on the basis of the recommendations made by the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee (HSSC) giving benefit of doubt. The petitioners had not produced either primary or secondary evidence as prescribed under the Scheme to substantiate their claims of underground sufferings. The recommendations of the State Government were based only on personal knowledge certificates of other freedom fighters furnished by the petitioners. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari's case (supra), has no application. In the said case, pension was granted from the date of receipt of the application because the applicant therein was able to produce the required evidence as prescribed under the Scheme. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari's case (supra), has no application. In the said case, pension was granted from the date of receipt of the application because the applicant therein was able to produce the required evidence as prescribed under the Scheme. But, in cases where the applicants are unable to produce the evidence as prescribed under the Scheme satisfying the eligibility criteria and pension was sanctioned based on any other document by giving benefit of doubt, it was sanctioned only prospectively i.e., from the date of the approval of the competent authority. The policy of the Government of India is in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Ganesh Chandra Dolai and others, SLP (C) No.2325 of 1995 dated 24.4.1995, (1997) 10 SCC 289 and in MR. Chelliah Thevar v. Union of India, SLP No.25053 of 1995 dated 30.4.1996. The petitioners have produced neither primary nor secondary evidence as prescribed under the scheme to substantiate their claims of underground sufferings. State Government had not given their recommendation based on any official records and recommendation was based only on personal knowledge certificates of other freedom fighters. Therefore, since the petitioners were unable to produce the evidence, either primary or secondary, as required under the Scheme, their claims were considered in relaxation of the normal eligibility and evidentiary requirements and pension was sanctioned prospectively i.e., from the date of approval of the competent authority. It is further averred that pursuant to the interim directions, the request of the petitioners has been considered and by order dated 31.8.2009 their claim for grant of pension from the date of making application was, rejected. Paras 6 and 7 of the said order read thus: 6. Since you had not produced any acceptable evidence as prescribed under the Scheme to substantiate your claimed sufferings, the judgment in M.L. Bhandari's case (supra), was not applicable in your case. Pension was sanctioned to you by giving the benefit of doubt from the date of approval of the competent authority. 7. You have not produced any fresh evidence in support of your claim to necessitate a change in. this decision. Therefore, your request for grant of pension from an earlier date has not been accepted and is hereby rejected." 5. Heard both sides. 6. 7. You have not produced any fresh evidence in support of your claim to necessitate a change in. this decision. Therefore, your request for grant of pension from an earlier date has not been accepted and is hereby rejected." 5. Heard both sides. 6. The Supreme Court in M.L. Bhandari's case (supra), considered the aspect whether the benefit of the Scheme should be extended only from the date the claimant produces the required proof of his eligibility to the pension. Dealing with the said question, the Supreme Court held that once the application is made, even if it is unaccompanied by the requisite eligibility data, the date on which it is made should be accepted as the date of the preferment of the claim whatever the date on which the proof of eligibility is furnished. The Supreme Court has also dealt with the question as to whether, notwithstanding the date on which the application was made, the claimant should be entitled to the benefit of the pension with effect from an earlier date. Dealing with the question, it was held: "10. Hence we are of the view that the pension under 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, sanctioned only after required proof is produced." 7. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that pension should be granted only from the date on which the application was made whether the application was accompanied by the necessary proof of eligibility or not. However, it was held that sanction of pension should be accorded only after the required proof is produced. Thus, according to the Supreme Court, date of making the application is the criteria for sanction of pension, irrespective whether the required proof is produced at the same time together with the application or it was produced at a later date. However, pension should be granted only after required proof was produced by the applicant as prescribed under the Scheme. 8. In Union of India and others v. Ganesh Chandra Dolai and others (supra), the freedom fighters therein filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming pension with retrospective effect from 1980. However, pension should be granted only after required proof was produced by the applicant as prescribed under the Scheme. 8. In Union of India and others v. Ganesh Chandra Dolai and others (supra), the freedom fighters therein filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming pension with retrospective effect from 1980. The High Court relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Duli Chand v. Union of India, (1992) 2 SCC 28 = 1992 SCC (L&S) 409, granted pension w.e.f. 1980. Distinguishing Duli Chand's case (supra), the Supreme Court held that in the said case the petitioners therein were granted pension w.e.f. 1.8.1980 because they had produced the relevant documents in support of their claim. The Supreme Court held that since it was asserted by the Government of India that the respondents in Ganesh Chandra Dolai's case (supra), were granted pension giving benefit of doubt, the pension can only be given from the date of the order. It was held: "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 where under pension has been given to the respondents from the date of the order of the Government of India." 9. It appears that pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Chandra Dolai's case (supra), a policy decision was taken by the Government of India to grant pension in cases where pension was granted giving benefit of doubt only with effect from the date of approval of the competent authority. 10. In Union of India v. M.R. Chelliah Thevar, CA No.7762 of 1996 dated 30.4.1996, the Supreme Court followed the decision in Ganesh Chandra Dolai's case (supra). While following the said decision the Supreme Court made distinction between Mukund Lal Bhandari's case (supra) and Ganesh Chandra Dolai's case (supra) and held: "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. While following the said decision the Supreme Court made distinction between Mukund Lal Bhandari's case (supra) and Ganesh Chandra Dolai's case (supra) and held: "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 Mukund Lal Bhandari and others v. Union of India and others, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 2, as well as the decision in Amarnath Malhotra and others v. Union of India, dated 19th October, 1994. 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 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 recognized 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 others)". (emphasis supplied). 11. The Supreme Court had again an occasion to consider such cases and referring to the aforementioned cases reiterated the principle in Government of India v. K. V. Swaminathan, (1997) 10 SCC 190 , in the following tems: "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. 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". 12. The Supreme Court had again dealt with the issue in Union of India v. Kaushalaya Devi, (2007) 9 SCC 525 and held: "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 all the basis of jail certificate produced by the claimant but all the basis of oral statement of some other detenu. 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." (emphasis supplied). 13. Therefore, from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Chandra Dolai's case (supra) and Union of India v. Kaushalaya Devi (supra), it is clear that where the applicants are unable to produce the required proof as prescribed under the Scheme and pension was granted in their favour only on the basis of Personal Knowledge Certificates (PKCs) of other freedom fighters by giving benefit of doubt or on the basis of secondary nature of evidence in relaxation of normal eligibility and evidentiary requirements of the Scheme, then, such claimants are entitled to be granted pension under the Scheme only from the date of the order but not from the date of their applications and question of arbitrariness or illegality doesn't arise in those cases. 14. In Mukund Lal Bhandari's case (supra), the Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with the cases of persons where pension had been granted giving benefit of doubt or in cases where pension was granted on the basis of secondary nature of evidence in relaxation of normal rule of eligibility and evidentiary requirements of the Scheme. 14. In Mukund Lal Bhandari's case (supra), the Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with the cases of persons where pension had been granted giving benefit of doubt or in cases where pension was granted on the basis of secondary nature of evidence in relaxation of normal rule of eligibility and evidentiary requirements of the Scheme. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the decision in Mukund Lal Bhandari's case (supra), cannot be made applicable to cases where pension was granted giving benefit of doubt or based on secondary nature of evidence in relaxation of the normal rule of eligibility and evidentiary requirements of the Scheme. 15. It was also brought to our notice that a learned single Judge of this Court by a common order dated 27.4.2012 in WP Nos.30769, 34587 of 2011 and 4213 of 2012 dismissed such claims for grant pension from the date of application. In the said order the learned Single Judge has considered the cases of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ganesh Chandra Dolai (supra) and Union of India v. Kaushalaya Devi (supra) and observed thus: "Further this Court is conscious that payment of pension to the freedom fighters cannot be treated as a charity or bounty. It is a privilege conferred on them in recognition of their selfless sacrifices for the cause of the nation. Genuine freedom fighters deserve to be treated with reverence, respect and honour. At the same time, it is necessary to weed out bogus claims. Otherwise, it would be making a mockery of the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme which is in fact intended to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the honour of its need. Keeping the above avowed object in mind and considering the cases of the petitioners on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Apex Court on the point, as discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the firm view that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in passing the impugned sanction orders granting pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme from the date of the order but not from the date of their applications.” 16. It may also be noticed that a Division Bench of this Court, (presided over by myself and Vilas Afzal Purkar, J) by order (Union of India v. Yelamareddy Suryamma and another, dated 14.8.2012 in WA No.315 of 2012) had also an occasion to deal with a case of similar nature arising out of an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No.22127 of 2011 dated 19.9.2011 wherein the learned Single Judge emitted the matter for re-examination by the Government of India and to consider whether the doubt entertained by it as to the eligibility of the petitioner therein for grant of pension is fair and reasonable or not and also to reconsider whether the petitioner can be granted pension from the date of application instead of the date of order. Following the decision in Union of India v. Kaushalaya Devi (supra), the Division Bench modified the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the authorities to pay pension only from the date of the order. 17. In the present case, in the counter filed by the 1st respondent, it was categorically stated that the petitioners were granted pension giving benefit of doubt and they have not produced the evidence as prescribed under the Scheme so that pension can be granted from the date of the applications. It is the specific case of the 1st respondent that pension was granted to the petitioners giving benefit of doubt in relaxation of the normal eligibility and evidentiary requirements of the Scheme. It is also the case of the 1st respondent that even the recommendation of the State Government was not based on any official records but based only on Personal Knowledge Certificates (PKCs) of other freedom fighters. 18. The assertions made in the counter-affidavit have not been controverted by the petitioners by filing a reply. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position as stated above, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of pension from the date of applications. 19. In the result, there is no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.