Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus KAUSHALAYA DEVI

Decided
15 February 2007
Judges listed
S.B. SINHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 745 · 2007 INSC 152
Also cited as
  • (2007) 9 SCC 525 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 746

2

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dated 5.1.2005 in Writ Petition No.143 of2004.

p. 746, margin B

3

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. The short question in this case is whether the Freedom Fighters' Pension should be granted to the respondent from the date of the application or the date of the order granting the pension.

p. 746, margin B

4

It •has been held by this Court in Government of India v. K. Swaminathan [1997] IO SCC 190 that where the claim is allowed on the basis of benefit of doubt, the pension should be granted not from the date of the application but from the date of the order.

p. 746, margin C

5

In the present case, we have perused the record and found that it is stated th~rein 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 detenue. 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;

p. 746, margin C

6

U:amed counsel for respondent has relied on the judgment of this Court in Mukand Lal Bhandari v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (1993) SC 2127.

p. 746, margin E

7

In our opinion that decision is distinguishable as it has been stated therein that the pension cannot be granted from any date prior to the application. In our opinion this does not mean that it cannot be granted from a date subsequent to the application.

p. 746, margin F

8

For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and it is directed that the pension will be granted only from the date of the order for granting pension and not from the date of the application. N.J. Appeal allowed.

p. 746, margin F