A. N. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE short question raised in this petition is whether the Khaksar Movement falls within the definition of freedom Movement as defined under R. 1 of the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated January, 10, 1977 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, cancelling an earlier order by which the petitioner was granted a political pension of Rs. 60/- per month which was subsequently raised to Rs. 70/- per month The order further directed that the amount of pension paid to the petitioner may be realised from him according to law. ( 3 ) SHORTLY stated the petitioners case is that he participated in the Khaksar Movement which was started, by Sri Allama Inayatuallah Khan Mashriqi somewhere in 1940. The object of the movement, according to the petitioner, was to liberate the people of India from the British Rule. In connection with that movement, the petitioner remained in Lahore Jail for one month, in Multan Jail for 3 months 10 days and the Banda Jail for two days. Together the terms of these imprisonments lasted 4 months and 12 days between July 1, 1940 to November 13, 1940. In the issue of the weekly Blitz dated December 23, 1972 a notice was circulated purporting to have been issued by the Governments of India and Uttar Pradesh that a decision had been taken to give political pension to Khaksars who had participated in the countrys Freedom Movement. After obtaining certificates from the jail authorities the petitioner applied for and was granted a pension of Rs. 60/- per month from March 1, 1974 by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 70/- per month from February 7, 1976. Later on a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner stating that he had suppressed certain material facts in his application and that the petitioner had in fact not participated in any freedom movement. The petitioner replied to this notice but, it appears, to no avail. Finally the impugned order was passed on January 10, 1977 cancelling the Pension Payment Order as well as directing the amounts already paid to him as pension to be refunded to Government. Hence this petition. The petitioner replied to this notice but, it appears, to no avail. Finally the impugned order was passed on January 10, 1977 cancelling the Pension Payment Order as well as directing the amounts already paid to him as pension to be refunded to Government. Hence this petition. ( 4 ) THE controversy is governed by the provisions of a set of statutory rules called the grant of Pension to Freedom Fighters and their Families, Freedom Fighters Pension Sche, 1972. Rule 2 defines a freedom fighter as one who participated in the freedom struggle and who as a result of such participation, might have undergone imprisonment for a period of at least two months. After setting out the above definition, Rule 2 (2) lists a number of specific movements which are deemed to be included in the wider definition of freedom Movement. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioners case does not fall in any of these movements. He placed reliance principally on the main part of Rule 2 which, as mentioned above, defines a freedom fighter as one who has participated in the freedom Movement. ( 5 ) THE question which falls for determination, therefore, is whether the aforesaid movement could be described as part of the Freedom Movement. On this controversy learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a treatise entitled khaksar Movement in India by Dr. Shan Muhammad of the Department of Political Science, Aligarh Muslim University. Both the learned counsel agreed that there is no other authoritative material throwing light on the subject at issue. Shri R. R. K. Trivedi arguing for the petitioner took us through various pages of this work in support of his contention that this movement was clearly one which was conceived and launched to liberate India from the British Rule. ( 6 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that though this movement started essentially as a purely social organization committed to bring about unity between various communities in India, and, though in course of time it also made contribution in the Indian Nationalist Movement, in the final phase of the struggle for freedom immediately prior to the achievement of Independence, its role rendered its claim as a Freedom Movement clearly open to question. We are extracting below the final conclusion reached by the author of the aforesaid book in regard to this movement at page 140 :-"the role of the Khaksars during these crucial years appears to have had no significance. Their silence leads one to conclude that their activities revolved round the achievement of Independence for India and to achieve it they backed the demand for Pakistan. They lastly appeared on June 10, 1947 while the Council of the Muslim League was meeting in the Imperial Hotel, New Delhi, to ratify the Mountabatten Plan for Partition. This time their demand was an undivided Pakistan stretching from karachi to Calcutta. They were not satisfied with the policy of the Muslim League which had accepted a truncated moth eaten Pakistan. Armed with belches, they made their way to the site of the session, rebuking Jinnah and the League. The police, after some resistance, repulsed them. This was their last public appearance". ( 7 ) A demand for turning India into an undivided Pakistan stretching from karachi to Calcutta is hardly consistent with the hypothesis that the Khaksars were freedom fighters engaged in the struggle for wresting power from the British and for conferring the same on an independent Indian Government. Political pension, in our opinion, cannot be claimed under the aforesaid rules by one who was fighting for a unified Pakistan. The rules providing for grant of political pension to Freedom Fighters, to our mind, are clearly intended to reach benefits to those who worked for that India which was called bharat. It cannot, in our considered view, be pressed in aid by the members of a movement which, at the crucial juncture of our history joined hands with those who were clamouring for the creation of Pakistan with its territories extending from karachi to Calcutta. ( 8 ) IN view of the role of the Khaksars during these crucial years, it is unnecessary to dwell on the intervening history of this movement from 1920 to 1947 on which learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied. ( 9 ) OUR conclusion, therefore, is that the petitioner was rightly held not to be entitled to political pension under the aforesaid rules. ( 9 ) OUR conclusion, therefore, is that the petitioner was rightly held not to be entitled to political pension under the aforesaid rules. However, we think that having regard to the fact that the petitioner applied for pension in pursuance of the aforesaid news item that appeared in the Blitz honestly believing that Khaksars were entitled to be treated as freedom fighters and, therefore, entitled to pension and to his age, it would be extremely hard to insist on the recovery of the amounts already paid to the petitioner as political pension. The learned Standing Counsel also, on our request, agreed not to press for recovery of Rs. 1,889/- from the petitioner. ( 10 ) IN the result, subject to the observations made above, the petition fails and is dismissed. But we make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .