JUDGMENT : ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J. 1. This Writ Appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 24.5.2018 in W.P.(C)No.33947 of 2011. The said Writ Petition was one filed by the first respondent herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents therein to sanction and disburse Dependent Pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (SSS Pension Scheme) to the writ petitioner from the date of the application, i.e., from 19.3.1998 and disburse the arrears thereon with interest. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus declaring that the writ petitioner is entitled to get Dependent Pension under SSS Pension Scheme from the date of application and further direct the respondents therein to issue necessary orders to that effect. 2. By the judgment dated 24.5.2018, W.P.(C) No.33947 of 2011 was allowed by directing the respondents therein, who are the appellants in this Writ Appeal, to disburse the Dependent Pension to the writ petitioner from the date of application, within a period of three months. The reasoning of the learned Judge, contained in the impugned judgment at paragraph 5 reads thus:- “.............. .............. .............. ............ 5. While granting of pension certain amount of discretion is left to the authority. In this case there are records to show that the petitioner [sic: petitioner's husband] suffered imprisonment for two months. There are primary evidence. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the application was fully without support of any primary evidence. It cannot be said that pension was granted merely based on benefit of doubt. Over all circumstances certainly show that the petitioner can be granted pension from the date of application. I am of the view that the petitioner should be given pension from the date of application. .............. ............. .............. .............” 3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.05.2018, the official respondents are before this court in this Writ Appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. 4. Heard Sri Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the appellants, Smt. K.P. Geetha Mani, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner and also Sri Surin George Ipe, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent/State. 5. 4. Heard Sri Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the appellants, Smt. K.P. Geetha Mani, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner and also Sri Surin George Ipe, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent/State. 5. The issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Appeal is as to whether the judgment of the learned single Judge, whereby the appellants are directed to disburse the Dependent Pension under SSS Pension Scheme to the writ petitioner from the date of application can be sustained in law. 6. The pleadings and the materials on record would show that the writ petitioner's husband Sri Chenni Kumaran, who was a participant of the Punnapra-Vayalar Struggle moved Ext.P2 application dated 19.03.1998 for SSS Pension. He was a recipient of pension under the Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension Rules, as evident from Ext.P3 order dated 06.01.1972 of the District Collector, Alappuzha. He died during the pendency of that application. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed an application for Dependent Pension under SSS Pension Scheme before the 1st appellant, which was originally rejected by Ext.P5 order dated 30.10.2006. The said order was set aside by this court in W.P.(C)No.12775 of 2007 by Ext.P7 judgment dated 28.3.2008, whereby the State Government was directed to reconsider the issue in the light of Ext.P6 report dated 25.11.1971 of the Tahsildar, Cherthala and the other documents relied on by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was directed to produce the authenticated copy of Ext.P6 report or any other relevant records before the 2nd respondent/State and on receipt of the same the State was directed to reconsider the matter and forward a verification-cum-entitlement certificate to the Central Government. 7. In Ext.P7 judgment, this court directed that the State Government shall consider the matter after calling for the relevant files from the District Collector, Alappuzha relating to Ext.P6 report and do the needful within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of that judgment. On receipt of such report, the Central Government shall reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders regarding sanction of pension, within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of the records from the State Government. On receipt of such report, the Central Government shall reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders regarding sanction of pension, within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of the records from the State Government. If the Central Government is in favour of granting pension, the entitlement for arrears from the date of receipt of the application, which is dated 19.3.1998, shall also be considered. 8. Pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P7 judgment, the appellants reconsidered the matter and granted Dependent Pension to the writ petitioner, by Ext.P8 order dated 04.12.2018, with effect from 02.10.2006. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P8 order, insofar as the claim for Dependent Pension from the date of application till the date of that order is declined, the writ petitioner moved this court in W.P.(C)No.33947 of 2011. 9. The Central Government, during the Silver Jubilee year of Independence, introduced a Central Scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and their eligible dependents (where freedom fighters have already expired) with effect from 15.08.1972. In 1980, the Scheme was liberalised and renamed as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 and made effective from 01.08.1980. 10. Paragraph 3 of the SSS Pension Scheme deals with eligibility, for the purpose of grant of Samman Pension under the Scheme. Clause (a) of paragraph 3 reads thus; “3. Who is eligible? For the purpose of grant of Samman Pension under the scheme, a freedom fighter is:- (a) A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before Independence. However, ex-INA personnel will be eligible for pension if the imprisonment/detention suffered by them was outside India. The minimum period of actual imprisonment for eligibility of pension has been reduced to three months, in case of women and SC/ST freedom fighters from 01.08.1980. EXPLANATION 1. Detention under the orders of the competent authority will be considered as imprisonment. 2. Period of normal remission upto one month will be treated as part of actual imprisonment. 3. In the case of a trial ending in conviction, under trial period will be counted towards actual imprisonment suffered. 4. Broken period of imprisonment will be totaled up for computing the qualifying period.” 11. Annexure 2 to the Scheme deals with eligibility conditions and evidentiary requirements for SSS Pension Scheme. 3. In the case of a trial ending in conviction, under trial period will be counted towards actual imprisonment suffered. 4. Broken period of imprisonment will be totaled up for computing the qualifying period.” 11. Annexure 2 to the Scheme deals with eligibility conditions and evidentiary requirements for SSS Pension Scheme. Para.2.1 of Annexure 2 deals with the documents to be furnished in the case of imprisonment, which reads thus; “2.1 In case of imprisonment: (a) Imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned jail authority, District Magistrate or the State Govt. indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release. (b) In case records of the relevant period are not available, the secondary evidences in the form of 2 co-prisoner certificates (CPC) from freedom fighters who have proven jail suffering of minimum 1 year and who were with the applicant in the jail could be considered provided the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned, after due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certifies that documentary evidences from the official records in support of the claimed sufferings were not available. In case the certifier happens to be a sitting or Ex. M.P./M.L.A., only one certificate in place of the two is required.” 12. In the instant case, the claim made by the petitioner for Dependent Pension is on the strength of Ext.P1 extract of Register of Undertrial Prisoners in Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram and Ext.P6 report of the Tahsildar, Cherthalai dated 25.11.1971. As per Ext.P1, late Chenni Kumaran, husband of the claimant had undergone under trial imprisonment in Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram from 27th Vrischikam 1123 (13.12.1947) to 16.06.1123 (30.01.1948) in connection with P.E.No.10/123 of Special Magistrate, Alleppey. Admittedly, the period covered by Ext.P1 is less than the minimum imprisonment of six months specified in clause (a) of paragraph 3 of the SSS Scheme. 13. In Ext.P6 report of the Tahsildar, it is reported that late Chenni Kumaran was under detention for a period of 10 months. The said document cannot be taken as a primary evidence in order to prove a claim for Samman Pension/Dependent Pension under SSS Pension Scheme in view of the provisions under clause (a) of Para.2.1 of Annexure 2. 14. In Ext.P6 report of the Tahsildar, it is reported that late Chenni Kumaran was under detention for a period of 10 months. The said document cannot be taken as a primary evidence in order to prove a claim for Samman Pension/Dependent Pension under SSS Pension Scheme in view of the provisions under clause (a) of Para.2.1 of Annexure 2. 14. Relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Union of India v. Radhamony [ 2005 (4) KLT 27 ], the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that the writ petitioner is entitled for Dependent Pension, with effect from the date of application. 15. Per contra, the learned Central Government Counsel relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Kaushalya Devi [ (2007) 9 SCC 525 ] would contend that if the claim was allowed on the basis of benefit of doubt, the pension should be granted not from the date of application, but from the date of order. 16. In Puthusseri Valiya Veettil Thambayi Amma v. Union of India and another [ 2011 (2) KHC 891 ] this Court noticed that in Mukund Lal Bhandari and others v. Union of India and others, [(1993) Supp (3) SCC 2] the Apex Court held that the payment has to be effected under 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme', irrespective of whether the application was accompanied by necessary proof of eligibility or not and the same had to be effected from the date on which the original application was received. The law having been declared by the Apex Court was accordingly relied on by the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Radhamony, [ 2005 (4) KLT 27 ] by allowing the appeal and overruling the judgment rendered earlier to the contrary, as reported in Krishnankutty v. Union of India [ 2003 (1) KLT 21 ]. However, in the subsequent decision rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Kaushalaya Devi [ (2007) 9 SCC 525 ] the Apex Court held that if the claim was allowed 'on the basis of benefit of doubt', the pension should be granted not from the date of application, but from the date of order. However, in the subsequent decision rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India and another v. Kaushalaya Devi [ (2007) 9 SCC 525 ] the Apex Court held that if the claim was allowed 'on the basis of benefit of doubt', the pension should be granted not from the date of application, but from the date of order. If the pension that has been given under the Scheme is on the basis of 'primary evidence', i.e., jail certificate and not on the basis of any secondary evidence of 'co-prisoner's certificate' (CPC) it is not by extending any benefit of doubt, so as to restrict the benefits by giving effect only from the date of the order/Judgment as stipulated by the Apex Court in Kaushalaya Devi' case (supra). If the suffering is proved by 'primary evidence', the claimant is entitled to have the benefit with effect from the date of the application itself. Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the said decision read thus; “8. It was based on the said verdict, that the judgment in Union of India v. Radhamony [ 2005 (4) KLT 27 ] was rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, holding that the pension should be paid to the applicant from the date on which the original application was received, irrespective of the fact whether the application was filed with or without the requisite evidence. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari and others v. Union of India and others reported in [(1993) Supp (3) SCC 2] is no more good law, having substantially varied by the Supreme Court as per decision in Union of India and another v. Kaushalaya Devi [ (2007) 9 SCC 525 ]. This submission is sought to be controverted from the part of the petitioner, stating that exactly similar issue has already been dealt with and held by this Court in favour of the petitioner, holding that pension has to be paid with effect from the 'date of application' and not otherwise. 9. This submission is sought to be controverted from the part of the petitioner, stating that exactly similar issue has already been dealt with and held by this Court in favour of the petitioner, holding that pension has to be paid with effect from the 'date of application' and not otherwise. 9. In Mukund Lal Bhandari and others v. Union of India and others, [(1993) Supp (3) SCC 2] it was held that the payment has to be effected under 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme', irrespective of whether the application was accompanied by necessary proof of eligibility or not and the same had to be effected from the date on which the original application was received. Law having been declared by the Apex Court was accordingly relied on by the Division Bench of this Court by allowing the appeal as per judgment in Union of India v. Radhamony, [ 2005 (4) KLT 27 ] overruling the judgment rendered earlier to the contrary, as reported in [ 2003 (1) KLT 21 ], Krishnankutty v. Union of India. 10. The next question to be considered is whether the subsequent decision rendered by the Supreme Court cited on the part of the respondents i.e., decision in Union of India and another v. Kaushalaya Devi [ (2007) 9 SCC 525 ] has tilted the balance in any manner. The pension under the Central Scheme was granted therein, confining the benefit only with effect from the date of granting pension, placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Government of India v. K. V. Swaminathan, [ (1997) 10 SCC 190 ]. It was held that, if the claim was allowed 'on the basis of benefit of doubt', the pension should be granted not from the date of application, but from the date of order. In Union of India v. Kashiswar Jana [ (2008) 11 SCC 309 ] this aspect was noted very much as discernible from the facts discussed in paragraph 4, which is extracted below: “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 on the basis of jail certificate produced by the claimant but on the basis of oral statement of some other detenu. In other words, the claim was not allowed on the basis of jail certificate produced by the claimant but on 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.” 11. Coming to the case in hand, it is very much obvious that the sufferings of the deceased husband of the petitioner/freedom fighter in the jail is authenticated by the 'primary evidence', i.e., jail certificates issued by the concerned jail authorities in respect of the confinement for the period from 28.01.1947 to 16.08.1948. This factual position has been adverted to by this Court in the opening paragraph of Ext.P4 judgment. There is no dispute on the factual position in the counter affidavit. This being the position, the pension that has been given under Ext.P1 Scheme, by passing Ext.P6 order, is on the basis of 'primary evidence', i.e., jail certificate and not on the basis of any secondary evidence of 'co-prisoner's certificate' (CPC) and hence it is not by extending any benefit of doubt, so as to restrict the benefits by giving effect only from the date of the order/ Judgment as stipulated by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v. Kaushalaya Devi [ (2007) 9 SCC 525 ]. The said decision itself is an authority that, if the suffering is proved by 'primary evidence' (as mentioned in paragraph 5), the claimant is entitled to have the benefit with effect from the date of the application itself, as held by the Apex Court in [(1993) Supp (3) SCC 2] cited supra.” 17. In the instant case, the Dependent Pension under SSS Pension Scheme, which has already been granted to the writ petitioner by Ext.P8 order, is not on the basis of any primary evidence, but based on secondary evidence. The said fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/1st respondent. 18. If that be so, the writ petitioner is not entitled for Dependent Pension from the date of application and she is entitled for the same only with effect from the date of Ext.P8 order. In that view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the learned single Judge, which is impugned in this Writ Appeal. 18. If that be so, the writ petitioner is not entitled for Dependent Pension from the date of application and she is entitled for the same only with effect from the date of Ext.P8 order. In that view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the learned single Judge, which is impugned in this Writ Appeal. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment and holding that the writ petitioner is entitled for Dependent Pension under the SSS Pension Scheme only with effect from the date of Ext.P8 order. Consequently, W.P.(C) No.33947 of 2011 will stand dismissed.