H. RANGAVITTALACHAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an unfortunate case where a freedom fighter recognised as such by the State Government, has to repeatedly approach this Court for grant of Freedom fighters Pension in accordance with the swatantra Salnik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereafter called as the Scheme) promulgated by the Government of India to honour freedom fighters.

( 2 ) THE Government of India promulgated a Scheme for granting pension to freedom fighters, i. e. those who suffered imprisonment for a minimum period of six months for the cause of the country during freedom movement. Under the Scheme, an applicant desirous of obtaining pension should apply in a prescribed form, in duplicate, one copy to be sent to the Chief Secretary of the concerned State who would forward the same with his recommendations and, another to be addressed directly to the Deputy Secretary, Government of India annexing a certificate issued by the concerned jail authorities or a co-prisoner in proof of imprisonment. Petitioner had filed an application on 27-11-1997 as per Annexure-A. In the Column 11 (d) under the heading Actual period of imprisonment suffered petitioner has stated that he was imprisoned from 2-2-1942 to 4-11-1942 and from 14-9-1947 to 12-10-1947. This application came to be rejected by the Government of India by an order dated 14-8-1998 in the first instance on the ground that the identity of the petitioner was not established inasmuch as, there was a variation in the description of the fathers name. Petitioner challenged the said order by filing w. P. No. 6267/1999. This Court by its order dated 18-9-2000, quashed the order observing : "the authorities have to remember that these persons who are illiterates, largely depend on person who claim to be literate to fill up the application forms and submit the application. Minor discrepancy here and there cannot be viewed as a serious discrepancy if otherwise the claim is genuine" and directed for re-enquiry regarding the identity of the petitioner. On remand, however, the Government of India on an altogether different reason namely, that "petitioner had failed to prove that he was imprisoned from 2-2-1942 to 24-9-1942 and that the jail extract sent by the Senior Superintendent, Central Prisons, vide his letter dated 5-8-1998 indicated that he was sent to jail on 25-9-1942 and released on 18-11-1942 and in the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioner had suffered imprisonment for six months, he was not entitled for grant of pension", yet again rejected the application by the order dated 8-2-2001. This order is challenged again. 2a. There is no dispute that the State of karnataka recognising petitioner as a freedom fighter granted freedom fighters pension vide Annexure-K dated 6-6-1992, which means that he should be recognised as a freedom fighter by the Government of India also, as has been held by the Madras High Court in K. S. Velusamy v. The Government of India, AIR 2000 Madras 42, that "when the state Government grants pension to a freedom fighter, the same should be accepted by the Central Government and no further proof should be insisted upon. In other words, once either the State Government or the Central government grants pension to a particular freedom fighter, he must automatically get the other pension either under the State or under the Central Government Scheme without any further enquiry on the claimant fulfilling the guidelines and the Government cannot reject the claim summarily that he is not a freedom fighter". I am in respectful agreement with the said view. Petitioner is a freedom fighter cannot be doubted. But the next question is whether the petitioner had fulfilled the other requirement of the Scheme i. e. , he had suffered imprisonment for a minimum period of six months during the freedom movement.

( 3 ) INSOFAR as the said requirement is concerned, petitioner has stated in the application filed before the Central Government that he was imprisoned from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document