1. Give me blood, I will give you freedom said Subhash Chandra Bose during the freedom struggle. The path of freedom struggle is not embedded with roses, but thorns. But it could not stop the freedom fighters, as they were firm in their only one ambition "Swaraj- Independent India" which they achieved in 1947.

2. To honour such warriors, inter-alia, Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972 was brought into effect, which was later called as the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (in short "the Scheme"). According to the writ petitioner/first respondent, he strained every nerve of his for securing freedom for the country. However, the pension sought for by him under the Scheme was rejected by the appellant, and on challenge, the learned Single Judge set aside the said order with consequential reliefs. Seeking interference in the said order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2017 passed in W.P. (MD) No. 17845 of 2016, the Union of India is before this Court in this appeal.

3. The appellant is the first respondent in the said writ petition, which was instituted by the first respondent herein. According to the writ petitioner/first respondent, who is now a nonagenarian, he had served in the Indian Independence League during 1943 at Rangoon, Burma, for which, he got a certificate dated 23.09.1964 from All India Burma Tamilian Association (H.Q.), Rangoon. The writ petitioner/first respondent claimed that he has been receiving the Freedom Fighter Pension from the State Government from 20.01.2003. Armed with necessary certificates, he submitted an application on 31.03.2004 to the appellant. He claimed that the said application was recommended by the second respondent herein, the same having been scrutinized by the concerned Screening Committee and the District Collector/the fourth respondent. However, the appellant rejected the claim by order dated 07.08.2006 in No. 29/14/2006-FF(INA), which was set aside by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order.

4. The contention of the leaned counsel for the appellant is that the reason for the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner/first respondent that the documents submitted by him are not sufficient to prove his eligibility for pension under the Scheme is against the very object of the Scheme.

5. Be that as it may, the typed set filed by the appellant contains Salient Features of the Scheme with appendices. Clause 2 provides for eligibility, of which, clause 2.2 speaks of imprisonment and the documents that have to be furnished by a pensioner making the claim. Accordingly, the writ petitioner/the first respondent had submitted Co-Prisoner Certificate issued by one Mr. T.P. Ponniah to the effect that they suffered imprisonment from June, 1945 to December, 1945 in Rangoon Central Jail. In similar lines, another Co-Prisoner Certificate was issued by one Mr. V. Kandasamy. Both the Co-Prisoners are recipients of Central and State pensions. However, the appellant rejected the claim of the writ petitioner/first respondent, inter-alia, on the ground that the Co-Prisoners have suffered imprisonment for less than one year making them ineligible to issue such certificates.

6. As noticed above, the Scheme for the grant of pension to the freedom fighters from central revenues was introduced by the Government of India to honour the Freedom Fighters. In fact, the pension is not only to lead the life of freedom fighters but also to the families, as even if they are not alive, it has to be extended to the family members of martyrs. The benefit of the Scheme is extended to all Freedom Fighters as a token of SAMMAN to them. Be that as it may, the writ petitioner/first respondent has joined the Indian Independence League and served in the Indian National Army (INA) and he has come well within the definition of "Freedom Fighter" and he has also produced the relevant records and he made his application in the year 2004, which has culminated in passing the impugned order on 07.08.2006.