SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for direction to respondents to release the freedom fighter pension payable to petitioner with effect from August 1, 1980 along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum from August 1, 1980.
(2.) AS per the averments made in the writ petition the petitioner actively participated for Independence of India during British Regime. He was arrested in January 1935 in relation to revolutionary activities. He was tried and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year and six months. Such intimation was sent by Hostel Superintendent of Woolner Hostel Lahore. On April 13, 1988 the petitioner was conferred a Tamrapatra by the State of Rajasthan. The Pension Pay Order No. 1742 was also issued to pay the petitioner pension Rs. 250/- per month from January 1, 1986, but no pension was paid to him. In the year 1981 the applications were invited from freedom fighters for pension under the scheme of Freedom Fighter's Pension. Vide order dated June 8, 1987 the application of petitioner was rejected without considering the affidavit of co-prisoner Mr. Veer Singh Mehta who was granted pension vide PPO No. 188 and 333. Against the order dated June 8, 1987 the petitioner submitted representations clarifying the objections. Vide letter dated April 18, 1990 the office of Prima Minister informed the petitioner that his representation has been forwarded to Home Ministry. The petitioner submitted many representations before the authorities time to time. While the coprisoner Veer Singh Mehta is getting pension from State and Central Governments. Lastly the notice for demand of justice was served on February 24, 1997. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India stating therein that during the year 1972, on the occasion of 25th anniversary of Independence of India, the Government of India introduced Freedom Fighter's Pension Scheme, 1972 allowing pension to freedom fighters whose income was less than 5000/- per annum. With effect from August 1, 1980 Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 came into existence and the Freedom Fighter's Pension Scheme, 1972 ceased to exist. Since the petitioner did not furnish documentary evidence about his imprisonment therefore the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The letter dated January 4, 1935 issued by Hostel Superintendent of Woolner Lahore did not speak of suffering by the petitioner as required under the provisions of the Scheme, therefore the State Government did not recommend the case of petitioner. Instant writ petition No. 4054/1997 came to be dismissed on August 13,1997, but in view of the order in DB Special Appeal No. 88/98 the case of the petitioner was reconsidered and he was not found eligible for SSS Pension. It was also stated that the petitioner placed reliance on the certificate of co-prisoner Veer Singh Mehta, who remained in custody from December 25, 1935 to August 20, 1936 i. e. for a period of 8 months only whereas the petitioner is claiming for imprisonment of one and a half year of which no documentary evidence has been placed on record therefore the case of petitioner was rejected. Having heard the rival submissions and on scanning the material on record I am of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the respondents in not granting freedom fighter pension are perverse and are such that no reasonable man acting reasonably could have arrived at. The Union of India ignored this fact that on account of partition of the country most of the citizen who suffered imprisonment are handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. Process of getting record from a foreign country is very cumbersome. By adopting technical approach the petitioner has been deprived from the benefit of technical scheme. In State of Maharashtra vs. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar (AIR 2004 SC 4264) the Apex Court indicated thus:- "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 of 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 on the basis of secondary evidence for grant of freedom fighter pension with effect from August 1, 1980. The respondents shall ensure compliance of this order within sixty days from the date of receipt of this order. Cost easy. .;