Judgment :- 1. The petitioner claims to be a freedom fig titer. According to him” he was arrested and imprisoned for various periods from 3.11.1939 to 10.3.1940 and again he was involved in the quit India Movement and was arrested and imprisoned from June, 1942 to December, 1942. On 29.5.1972 the Government of Tamil Nadu granted freedom fighters pension to the petitioner under the Rules in force in the State of Tamil Nadu. On 15.8.1972 the petitioner was awarded Silver Medal on the occassion of the celebration of the Silver Jubilee of the Countrys Independence. In the year 1973, the petitioner was awarded a ‘Pattayam’ which the petitioner claims to be Thamara Pattra. In 27.5.1979, the petitioner applied for the grant of the Central Governments pension for freedom fighters. On 4.1.1980, the Government of Tamil Nadu forwarded the application. On 14 9.1983 the petitioner applied to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuthithurai for getting a certificate of imprisonment. But he got a reply saying that the records had been destroyed. The petitioner thereupon submitted the following documents in support of claim for payment of pension; “I. Certificate issued by Tamil Nadu Congress Committee on 13-11-1943; 2. State Freedom Fighters Pension sanction order dated 29-5-1972. 3. Certificate issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu during Indian Independence silver Jubilee 1972 dated 15 8-1972. 4. Certificate issued by V.K. Krishnan Sastri co-prisoner dated 3-9-1977. 5. Certificate issued by V. Ambrose, Central Freedom Fighter pensioner and co-prisoner dated 27-6-1980. 6. Certificate issued by K. Rajiah, Central Freedom Fighter pensioner and co-prisoner dated 27-6-1980. 7. Certificate from N. Gopalakrishna Pillai, Central Freedom Fighter Pensioner and co-prisoner dated 5-2-1985. 8. A photostat copy of ‘Tamara Patra’ awarded by the State Government,” However, the Government by dated 6-11-1989, has rejected the claim on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any acceptable documentary evidence in support of his claim and that the State Government had not recommended his case for the grant of pension. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition for a direction to the first respondent to pay freedom fighters pension 27.5.1979 with 18% interest, 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu (second respondent) has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that even as early as on 17.9.1974 the Central Government had once rejected the petitioners request. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition for a direction to the first respondent to pay freedom fighters pension 27.5.1979 with 18% interest, 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu (second respondent) has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that even as early as on 17.9.1974 the Central Government had once rejected the petitioners request. The Collector of the District had sent a report on 26-6-1979 wherein it is pointed out that the petitioner was detained in police lock up in three spells. In the year 1939 he was detained for six months. In the year 1937-38 he had been detained for five months and again in the year 1939-40 he had been detained for six months and five days. On 21-11-1979 the State Advisory Committee recommended the case of the petitioner on the basis of the co-prisoners certificate from one Thiru P.K. Krishnasastry who is admittedly an Ex. M.L.A. Therefore, the Government of Tamil Nadu recommended the claim of the petitioner on 4.1.1980. However, the Government of India rejected the claim on 23.7.1980 on the ground that the co-prisoners certificate of P.K. Krishnasastry was not acceptable as authentic. It has also pointed out that Vettivurkavu Conference has not been recognised by the Government of India for sanction of pension. However, the following statement in the counter affidavit is significant. “The Collector has, however, stated that from local enquiries it is clear that Thiru D. Gabriel Nadar is a Freedom Fighter. In cases where there were no records to prove the imprisonment of either the certifiers or the certified the then Chairman, State Advisory Committee has opined that it may not be in a position to recommend in such cases.” Therefore, on 25.7.1986, the Government of Tamil Nadu reversed its stand and did not recommend the case of the petitioner. Consequently the impugned order dated 6-11-1989 was passed by the Government. It is also stated in the counter affidavit of the second respondent that the grant of Tamil Nadu Pension was as a special case and that in any event the criteria for the grant of pension by the State and Central Government are different. The Government of Tamil Nadu sets out elaborately in the counter affidavtis as to why the Government of India rejected the claim. The following sentence in the counter affidavit may again be noticed. The Government of Tamil Nadu sets out elaborately in the counter affidavtis as to why the Government of India rejected the claim. The following sentence in the counter affidavit may again be noticed. “Again, the award of Tamarapattayarn to the petitioner by the State Government to which all State Freedom Fighters Pensioners are entitled, does not in any way bind the Government of India to sanction Central pension, since the eriteria for the same is different.” It is really surprising to see as to why the State of Tamil Nadu should be so anxious to prevent the petitioner from getting the pension. 3. The Erst respondent has also filed a separate counter affidavit. The first respondent points out that there were certain discrepancies in the periods of imprisonment claimed by the petitioner in his application in the present writ petition. The first respondent points out the conditions under which the Central Government can grant pension. The primary conditions for the purpose of this case is that the claimant should have undergone six months imprisonment prior to 15.8.1947. Secondly, he must produce the jail records or court records in proof of the said imprisonment. In the absence of such jail records he must produce the co-prisoners certificate from an Ex-M.L.A. or Ex-M.P. The first respondent proceeds to give reason as to why they rejected the claim of the petitioner. So far as P.K. Krishnasastrys certificate is concerned, it is stated that the period of imprisonment had not been earlier reported by the petitioner in his first application, So far as the certificate of Ambrose and Dennis are concerned it is stated that the period did not tally with the period of imprisonment claimed by the petitioner. So is the case of the certificate of the coprisoner Rajiah. So far as Gopalakrishna Pillais certificate is concerned it is stated that it was not received by the Government. In conclusion it is stated that the certificates produced by the petitioner were “suffering from infirmities in one respect or other,” The following sentence in the counter affidavit of the first respondent is interesting. “In any event the award of ‘Tambra patra’ to the petitioner does not automatically give any right to claim the Freedom Fighters pension.” Finally, the first respondent says as follows: “I further submit that the grant of pension is not a statutory right but an exgratia payment in non-statutory scheme. “In any event the award of ‘Tambra patra’ to the petitioner does not automatically give any right to claim the Freedom Fighters pension.” Finally, the first respondent says as follows: “I further submit that the grant of pension is not a statutory right but an exgratia payment in non-statutory scheme. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim a right to get pension, especially when the scheme contemplates that the payment of pension is subject verification of the fact whether the petitioner had in fact suffered the imprisonment for the relevant period.” 4. On the above pleadings, I am at a loss to know why the respondents are denying the claim of the petitioner on purely technical grounds. Schemes are introduced by the Government not for the purpose of adding feathers to their cap. Such schemes are not for the sake of adding to the record of achievement. These schemes are essentially to benefit the freedom fighters who had suffered for the cause of freedom. To say that the petitioner has no statutory right and the grant of pension is gratuitous is most uncharitable. The proof of the pudding is in its eating. This is certainly not a case where the respondents can take an inflexiable attitude and try to interpret the rules too strictly. The razor edge interpretation is certainly not called for in a case like this. But even as per Rules the petitioner (sic). Now let me look at the requirements of law. Admittedly, the rules for the grant of Central Government pension and the mode of proof are set out in the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. I may quote the relevant requirements of law. “Certificate from the concerned jail authorities, District Magistrates or the State Government in case of non-availability of such certificates co-prisoner certificates from a sitting M.P. or M.L.A. or from an ex. M P. or an ex. M.L.A. specifying the jail period (Annexure-I in the application form).” In a subsequent press note this requirement was slightly modified as follows: “In respect of claim of jail sufferings, the Government will now accept certificates of co-prisonership from any two renowned freedom fighters, who themselves had undergone imprisonment for not less than one year in connection with freedom struggle and are receipients of Tamara-patras add pension from the Central Revenues. Under the existing provisions of Scheme such co-prisoner certificates were acceptable only when they had been issued by a sitting or former legislator.” 5. Neither the first respondent nor the second respondent has come forward with a categorical plea with reference to the certificates given by the co prisoners and which are relied on by the petitioner and as to why such certificates should be ignored. At the bar it is now represented by both the counsel for respondents that the certificates of the co-prisoners did not satisfy the necessary requirements because there is no proof that co-prisoners had under gone imprisonment for one year. The petitioner must have been informed about this infirmity so that he could have very well tried to get an appropriate certificate or atleast proved that the co-prisoners had in fact undergone one year imprisonment. I find from the typed set of papers that there are atleast two certificates about which no exception can be taken vis a vis the guidelines prescribed by the Government. The certificate of one V. Ambrose clearly states that the petitioner was imprisoned with V. Ambrose at Kuzhithurai Police Station from November 1939 to 10-51940, and that they were both released together. The said Ambrose also says that he is a holder of Thamara Patra. There is a second certificate of one Gopala Krishna Pillai who also claims that he is also a Thamara Pattayam holder. He says in the certificate that the petitioner was in the same lock up as the certifier for the period from 14-6-1942 to 19-12-1942. I have already referred to the other certificates produced by the petitioner. Neither the counter affidavits nor the replies of the respondents give any specific reason as to why these certificates should not be accepted. The certifiers are admittedly persons who are receiving pension ftom the Central Government. They also claim to be holders of Thamara Patras. The only contention now raised at the bar is that there is no proof to say that the certifiers had undergone one year imprisonment. The necessity of the certifiers being a sitting legislator or a past legislator has been dispensed with under the present guidelines. I am therefore, clearly satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of pension by the Central Government under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The necessity of the certifiers being a sitting legislator or a past legislator has been dispensed with under the present guidelines. I am therefore, clearly satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of pension by the Central Government under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. I have already pointed out that in cases like this one must look into the overall aspect of the claim and not dissect the requirements of law in such a manner so as to deny the claim of a pensioner. It is not as if the petitioner is not a freedom fighter at all. What he lacks according to the respondents is proof as required by the guidelines prescribed by the Governments on insignificant and minor matters. But I have already pointed out that at least two certificates produced by the petitioner satisfy the requirement of law. I therefore, set aside the order of the first respondent dated 6-11-1989 and direct the first respondent to grant pension under the above said scheme from the date of the petitioners second application, viz., from 27-5-1979. However, 1 am not inclued to grant interest at the rate of 18% as claimed in the writ petition. The payment of arrears to some extent will alleviate the sufferings of the petitioner. The arrears of pension shall be paid by the first respondent on or before 30-4 1991. Future pension will be paid every month in accordance with the scheme. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. There will be no orders as to costs.