SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a widow of 76 years of age, averred in the writ petition that her husband late Mool Chand Tanwar actively participated in Arya Samaj Movement in later 1930's within the erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad. He suffered imprisonment for one year and three months. In the year 1972 the Union of India introduced Freedom Fighter's Pension Scheme, 1972 (for short `pension Scheme' ). Late husband of the petitioner applied for the pension under the provisions of Pension Scheme. THE benefits of the pension were denied on the ground of non recognition of Hyderabad Arya Samaj Movement as equivalent to freedom independence movement. On further directions by respondent No. 3 the husband of petitioner submitted certificates of his suffering. However, on the death of her husband the petitioner was granted pension provided to dependents of freedom fighter, vide order dated December 2, 1989. THE State Government made recommendation to grant freedom fighter pension. Vide letter dated August, 1988 the claim of Samman pension was rejected on the ground of limitation. THE application for pension was rejected by Union of India vide letter dated February 6, 1991. After the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated on September 13, 1991 (1991) 4 SCC 366 that Arya Samaj Movement was part and parcel of freedom struggle, the petitioner filed writ petition that was decided on July 29, 2002 whereby the respondents were directed to consider the case of petitioner for grant of pension. THE petitioner was asked to submit original jail certificate of her husband, which was submitted by the petitioner on December 10, 2002. Even then vide order dated April 16, 2003 the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. THE petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks direction in the name of respondents to release Freedom Fighter Samman Pension with effect from August 1, 1980.
(2.) THE respondent No. 3 filed reply and submitted that the imprisonment of husband of petitioner could not verified. THE pension was allowed to petitioner under Freedom Fighter Samman Pension Rules, 1959, but the claim of petitioner under the Pension Scheme as been recommended to Central Government, who are responsible for such pension. THE respondents No. 1 & 2 filed affidavit of Mahendra Kumar, Section Officer in Ministry of Home Affairs and stated that for Samman Pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 the Freedom fighters are to fulfil certain conditions. He stated that earlier the application of petitioner's husband was not in proper format. In compliance of the order in writ petition No. 1671/97 the claim of the petitioner was considered and was rejected by a speaking order, as the jail certificate of petitioner's husband could not prove his imprisonment for a minimum period of six months. On the verification report of State Government the case of petitioner was again considered but she was not found eligible for the pension under the provisions of Pension Scheme. It is further stated that from the jail record it was found that the husband of petitioner remained in Aurangabad jail for a period of less than six months, therefore the petitioner is not entitled to pension. Having heard the submissions and scanned the record I find that the pension provided to the freedom fighter on his family is in fact the recognition of the sacrifices made by him during those days when our country was not free. In my opinion such sacrifice cannot be forgotten. The freedom fighter pension cannot be denied on adopting technical approach. The findings arrived at by the respondents in not granting freedom fighter pension to the petitioner are perverse and are such that no reasonable man acting reasonably could have arrived at. In such sensitive matters liberal approach is required to be adopted. In State of Maharashtra vs. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar (AIR 2004 SC 4264) the Apex Court indicated thus:- (Para 7) "the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction does not sit in judgment over the decision of the State Government like an appellate authority. Ordinarily, the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot enter into reappreciation of evidence and reverse the findings arrived at by the State Government unless they be perverse or be such as no reasonable man acting reasonably could have arrived at. If the High Court found that the decision arrived at by the State Government was flawed in any way then the High Court should have, after laying down the necessary principles or guidelines or issuing directions, directed the State Government to reconsider the case of the respondent. In no case, the High Court could have in exercise of its writ jurisdiction relaxed the need for full satisfaction of the necessary requirements of the fulfillment of which alone the respondent's entitlement to the release of freedom fighters' pension depended. I therefore allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighter Samman pension with effect from August 1, 1980. The respondents shall ensure compliance of this order within sixty days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Costs easy. .;