JUDGMENT K. C. Agarwal, A. C. J. - This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Dudhnath for quashing of the order of the Central Government dated 6-9-1988 as well as of the State Government dated 6-8-1988, Annexures-9 and 10, respectively. 2. The petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that on account of his activities in the Army when he was employed at the relevant time, i.e. between 20-7-1943 to 22-9-1944, he was court-marshalled by his superiors and was convicted and dismissed from service. 3. The petitioner has claimed that on account of the amended definition of the "Freedom Fighter" given in the Pension Scheme Rules, J972 he was entitled to get pension and as the same had been unduly delayed by the two Government mentioned above, he was entitled to get a mandamus directing the Central Government for fix the amount of pension which may be considered appropriate. 4. The Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme with which we are concerned in this writ petition came into force with effect from 15-8-1972. The said scheme provides for the grant of pension to the lying Freedom Fighters and their gamilies at the rate of Rs. 200 per month. The expression "Freedom Fighter" is defined in clause (e) of the aforesaid Scheme as under : (a) A person who has suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the manland cells before independence. However Ex-INA or Ex Military personnel will be eligible for pension if the imprisonment/detention suffered by them was outside India. Explanation 1. - Detention under the orders of the competent authority will be considered as imprisonment." 5. Sri Rahul Sripat, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the aforesaid definition alongwith Clause (f) of the Scheme under the head 'Eligibility' which reads as under : "(1) A person who lost his job, Civil or Military or means of livelihood for participation in National movement." He urged that as the petitioner has lost his job in National Movement as well as the livelihood, he was entitled to pension. 6. The writ petition has been contested by the Union Government on two grounds. The first ground was that the application bad not been filed within time and as such the same was liable to be rejected and the second ground was that there was nothing to prove that he was a Freedom Fighter. 7. 6. The writ petition has been contested by the Union Government on two grounds. The first ground was that the application bad not been filed within time and as such the same was liable to be rejected and the second ground was that there was nothing to prove that he was a Freedom Fighter. 7. In between there has been a dispute as to whether the petitioner filed the application within time or not. The averment made in the writ petition is that the application was filed by him in the year 1973. If that date is taken into consideration undoubtedly the application of the petitioner could not be rejected on the ground of limitation. Further more, the Union Government could extend the time for making the application. To us it appears that the Central Government was wrong in rejecting the application for pension made by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. To support his claim that the application was filed within time the petitioner alongwith the writ petition filed a copy of the claim for pension made by him as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. This does not contain the date itself but from the Annexures it is clear that the application of the petitioner was filed well within time. 8. Coming to the second ground, i.e. the merit of the petition, we find from paragraph No. 9 of the counter affidavit itself that the petitioner had been court-marshalled because of his not having obeyed the orders of the superiors. This could in the circumstances of the present case be considered to be so because of his feelings for the country that he did not obey the order of his superiors and it was for that purpose that he was court-marshalled. 9. The order of the State Government rejecting the application for grant of pension is vague and does not bear the scrutiny of facts. Consequently, the respondents were not right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner to get the political pension. 10. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition and set aside the orders of the State as well as Central Governments, dated 6-8-1988 and 6-9-1988 respectively and direct the appropriate authorities to determine the pension of the petitioner. No order as to costs.