JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned decision of the 1st respondent-Union Government as per Ext.P-7 order dated 17.7.2017 to the limited extent it has refused to grant Freedom Fighter's Dependent Family Pension to the petitioner with effect from the date of her application (viz, 14.11.2012). 2. The main prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “(i) issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, quashing that part of Exhibit P-7 Order of the 1st respondent by which the pension is granted to the petitioner only with effect from 1.2.2017; (ii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the 1st respondent to grant pension to the petitioner from the date of Ext.P-2 application i.e 31.01.2006, made by the husband of the Petitioner or at any rate from 14.11.2012, the date of application by the petitioner (Ext.P-3).” 3. Heard Sri. K.K. Mohammed Ravuf, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T.V. Vinu, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Union of India and Smt. A.C. Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 & 3 (State authorities). 4. According to the petitioner, her husband, Kunjappan, was a freedom fighter, who had actively participated in the freedom struggle against “Sir C.P's Independent Travancore Movement” and consequent to a warrant of arrest issued against him in C.C.No.60/1122 ME on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor, he had to remain underground for the period from December, 1946 to August, 1947 and that therefore he was entitled for the grant of freedom fighter's pension under the Central Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (SSSP Scheme, 1980). Petitioner's husband was granted the benefit of freedom fighter's pension under the Kerala Freedom Fighters' Pension Rules, 1971, as per Ext.P-1 proceedings dated 22.8.2001 of the 3rd respondent- District Collector, Ernakulam. The petitioner's husband had submitted Ext.P-2 application dated 31.1.2006 before respondents 1 & 2 for the grant of freedom fighter's pension under the Central Scheme, 1980. The said application was not favourably considered during the lifetime of petitioner's husband. The petitioner's husband had died on 15.3.2007. Thereupon the petitioner had submitted Ext.P-3 application dated 14.11.2012 under the Central Scheme, 1980 for the grant of freedom fighter's dependent family pension, being the dependent widow of the deceased freedom fighter. The said application was not favourably considered during the lifetime of petitioner's husband. The petitioner's husband had died on 15.3.2007. Thereupon the petitioner had submitted Ext.P-3 application dated 14.11.2012 under the Central Scheme, 1980 for the grant of freedom fighter's dependent family pension, being the dependent widow of the deceased freedom fighter. The 2nd respondent-State Government had issued Ext.P-4 proceedings dated 24.6.2014 recommending the case of the petitioner for the grant of dependent family pension to the 1st respondent-Union Government. In Ext.P-4 proceedings dated 24.6.2014, the 2nd respondent-State Government has clearly stated that on account of warrant of arrest issued against petitioner's husband, he had to remain underground for the period from December, 1946 to August, 1947 to evade arrest in C.C.No.60/1122 ME on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor. Further it is stated in Ext.P-4 that though primary evidentiary materials are absent, the petitioner had duly produced Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) issued by one Sri. K.C. Mathew, dated 14.11.2012 along with a copy of the jail extract and the SSSP sanctioning order of the said certifier and also the proceedings of the Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor in C.C.No.60/1122 ME certifying non availability of records, etc. It is on the basis of this secondary evidentiary materials based on the PKC of Sri. K.C. Mathew, who was an eligible certifier to issue such a certificate under the Central Scheme, the State Government has recommended for the grant of pension under the Central Scheme as per Ext.P-4. However, the 1st respondent-Union Government had rejected the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P-5 proceedings dated 23.7.2014 on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to produce the requisite evidentiary materials to prove the claim. Being aggrieved by Ext.P-5 proceedings dated 23.7.2014, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition as W.P.(C).No.26524/2014 before this Court. This Court as per Ext.P-6 judgment rendered on 1.2.2017 has finally disposed of W.P. (C).No.26524/2014 finding that the matter requires serious reconsideration at the hands of the 1st respondent in the light of Ext.P-4 proceedings of the 2nd respondent recommending the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court had remitted the matter to the 1st respondent-Union Government for consideration of the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of Ext.P-4 proceedings of the 2nd respondent-State Government. Accordingly, this Court had remitted the matter to the 1st respondent-Union Government for consideration of the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of Ext.P-4 proceedings of the 2nd respondent-State Government. Thereafter the 1st respondent-Union Government has issued the impugned Ext.P-7 order dated 17.7.2017 sanctioning freedom fighter's family dependent pension under the Central Scheme to the petitioner. However, it is stated in Ext.P-7 order dated 17.7.2017 that as the petitioner has made available only secondary evidentiary materials, she is entitled for the grant of freedom fighter's dependent family pension only from the date of Ext.P-6 judgment dated 1.2.2017 and not from the date of application. The petitioner would contend that as it has been clearly certified by the 2nd respondent-State Government in Ext.P-4 order as well as in Ext.P-1 proceedings that the petitioner's husband was constrained to remain underground on account of the warrant of arrest issued against him in C.C.No.60/1122 ME on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor, she is entitled to get the benefits of freedom fighter's dependent family pension and its arrears either from 31.1.2006 (date of Ext.P-2 application submitted by the petitioner's husband) or at least from 14.11.2012 (date of Ext.P-3 application submitted by the petitioner). It is this limited point that is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 5. Sri. T.V. Vinu, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for R-1, had requested this Court to grant adjournment for filing statement on behalf of R-1. Since this Court is proposing to decide the matter only on the basis of existing factual materials and the matter to be essentially decided is the question on the basis of existing materials, there is no necessity to file any counter affidavit in the matter. 6. It is by now well established by a series of rulings of the Apex Court and of this Court in decisions as in Union of India & anr. v. Kaushalaya Devi, reported in 2007 (9) SCC 525 that where the freedom fighter's pension is sanctioned to the claimant only on the basis of secondary evidentiary materials then the claimant is entitled to get freedom fighter's pension and its arrears only from the date of sanctioning order and not from the date of submission of the application. v. Kaushalaya Devi, reported in 2007 (9) SCC 525 that where the freedom fighter's pension is sanctioned to the claimant only on the basis of secondary evidentiary materials then the claimant is entitled to get freedom fighter's pension and its arrears only from the date of sanctioning order and not from the date of submission of the application. Further that the claimant could get the benefit of freedom fighter's pension from the date of submission of the application only in case where primary evidentiary materials in terms of the Central Scheme are duly produced by the claimant along with the application. From a reading of Ext.P-4 order of the 2nd respondent-State Government, it is crystal clear that the petitioner could only produce Personal Knowledge Certificate of one Sri. K.C. Mathew, dated 14.11.2012 in terms of the Central Scheme. No primary evidentiary materials like certified copy of the warrant of arrest issued by the Magistrate Court in the Calendar Case have been produced by the petitioner. Therefore, going by the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India & anr. v. Kaushalaya Devi, reported in 2007 (9) SCC 525 , the petitioner is not entitled to claim that she should be granted freedom fighter's dependent family pension from the date of the application of the claimant. However, there is one important aspect of the matter which has not been duly taken note of by the 1st respondent-Union Government. The petitioner had produced requisite secondary evidentiary materials like the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by the original certifier which has been duly acknowledged in Ext.P-5 proceedings dated 23.7.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent-State Government and inspite of the positive recommendation made by the 2nd respondent State Government, the competent authority of the 1st respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P-5 proceedings, which was set aside by this Court as per Ext.P-6 judgment whereby the matter was remitted to the 1st respondent for consideration afresh. It is not in dispute that no additional factual materials have been taken into account by the 1st respondent-Union Government, while sanctioning the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P-7 proceedings dated 17.7.2017. It is not in dispute that no additional factual materials have been taken into account by the 1st respondent-Union Government, while sanctioning the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P-7 proceedings dated 17.7.2017. Only those factual materials which were available before the 1st respondent at the time of issuance of the impugned Ext.P-5 proceedings dated 23.7.2014 alone have been taken into consideration by that authority in taking a positive decision in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P-7 dated 17.7.2017. Therefore, if all the relevant aspects of the matter had been taken into consideration, more particularly, PKC issued by the original certifier in terms of the Central Scheme, then the 1st respondent should have sanctioned the claim of the petitioner at least from the date of issuance of Ext.P-5 order dated 23.7.2014. The illegality committed by the 1st respondent-Union of India in rejecting the claim as per Ext.P-5 order cannot be the legal basis for that authority to hold that the petitioner is entitled to get arrears of freedom fighter's dependent family pension only from the date of Ext.P-6 judgment dated 1.2.2017. This Court is of the considered view that the 1st respondent should have sanctioned freedom fighter's dependent family pension to the petitioner as per Ext.P-7 proceedings at least with effect from 23.7.2014, the date of issuance of Ext.P-5. To the limited extent of Ext.P-7 order that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of freedom fighter's dependent family pension only from the date of Ext.P-6 judgment and not from the date of issuance of Ext.P-5, the same will stand legally interdicted. 7. Though the 1st respondent is right in contending that the petitioner cannot claim grant of freedom fighter's dependent family pension from the date of submission of her application as per Ext.P-3, it is only to be held that the petitioner is entitled to get the said pensionary benefits and its arrears at least from 23.7.2014. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has been disbursed pensionary benefits with effect from 1.2.2017 pursuant to Ext.P-7 order. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has been disbursed pensionary benefits with effect from 1.2.2017 pursuant to Ext.P-7 order. Accordingly, it is ordered that the competent authority of the 1st respondent will take steps to sanction and disburse freedom fighter's dependent family pension to the petitioner with effect from 23.7.2014 and arrears from 23.7.2014 to 31.1.2017 will be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent-Union Government for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.