JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—The petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing of the order of respondent No. 1 declining to grant the pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 1972 scheme) as conveyed to him through letter Annexure P-18 dated 7th January, 1977 and subsequent orders even refusing to allow the pension under the Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 1980 scheme) conveyed to him through letters Annexure P-22 dated 30th July, 1984 and Annexure P-23 dated 25th February, 1986 and praying for suitable directions directing respondent No 1 to grant him pension under 1972 scheme as liberalised by the 1980 scheme and for release of arrears of pension becoming due and payable from the date of application. 2. It is the petitioners case that at the very young age of 19-20 years, he joined the freedom struggle of the country and suffered tortures end humiliations at the hands of police of the then State of Tehri Garhwal in Uttar Pradesh and later on having taken part in the movement for the merger of erstwhile princely States of Bilaspur, Suket and Mandi in Himachal Pradesh with the Indian Union after 15th August, 1947 as a member of Praja Mandal Movement. According to him, during the freedom struggle he suffered imprisonment and was also externed firstly from Tehri Garhwal and later from Bilaspur, Suket and Mandi. The period of jail suffering and externment combined together being more than six months, as such, he was entitled to the grant of pension under the 1972 scheme, for which purpose on 2nd January, 1974 an application was moved by him and was sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Mandi and on 18th March, 1974 to the Deputy Commissioner, Tchri Garhwal with a request to forward (he same to respondent No 2, but his claim for grant of pension was wrongly rejected by conveying to him the decision of res pondent No, 1 through letter Annexure P-18 dated 7th January, 1977 stating that no formal application on the prescribed form had been submitted before the last date, namely, 31st March, 1974 and also that the jail suffering was less than six months, as such, the petitioners case was not covered under 1972 scheme. The petitioner took up the matter again with respondent No. 1 pointing out that the application, in fact, had been made within tine on 2nd January, 1974 and his case was fully covered, but the claim was again negatived by respondent No 1 when communication Annexure P-22 dated 30th July, 1984 from respondent No. 1 was received by him. By filing the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for quashing of the orders conveyed to him through communications Annexure P-18 and Annexure P-22 with a prayer to direct respondent No. 1 to pay him the pension by working it out under 1972 scheme from 2nd January, 1974 and under 1980 scheme from the date of coming into force of the said scheme. 3. The writ petition was presented on 26th December, 1984. On 24th June, \9b5 when after notice, the petition came up for admission, the Court passed the following order;— "The Court is of the opinion that the petitioners case for grant of pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme requires reconsideration at the bands of the first respondent in light of the material placed on the record of this case and in light of the decisions in cases of Tej Singh Nidharak v, Union of India and another, CWP 224 of 1983, decided on January 9, 1984 (ILR 1984 HP :93) and Keshav Chander v Union of India and another, CWP 413 of 1984, decided on December 11, 1984. Upon such reconsideration, the first respondent will grant such relief to the petitioner as is admissible in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of the receipt of the writ. The decision arrived at accordingly will be placed on the record of this case/9 4. Upon such reconsideration, the first respondent will grant such relief to the petitioner as is admissible in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of the receipt of the writ. The decision arrived at accordingly will be placed on the record of this case/9 4. After the aforementioned order had been passed, respondent No 1 took a decision on the petitioners claim that since the petitioners application had been received in the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India on 21st December, 1976, which was beyond the prescribed period, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of pension under 1972 scheme and, as such, his application had rightly been rejected on 7th January, 1977 and even under the 1980 scheme which came into force on 1st August, 1980, under which six months jail suffering is one of the essential conditions to make one eligible for pension, therefore, it was not possible to grant pension to the petitioner under 1980 scheme also. This decision was conveyed to the petitioner through letter dated 25th February, 1986 Annexure P-23. The petitioner thereafter sought permission to amend the writ petition by challenging the order of respondent No 1 converted to him through Annexure P-23. The prayer to amend the writ petition was allowed and now it is the amended writ petition, which is under consideration. 5. Respondent No. 1 has contested the writ petition by filing its reply on the affidavit of Mr. Chandan Singh, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi dated 28th May, 1986 In the reply, respondent No. 1 has taken up a stand that the petitioner had no right to claim the pension under 1972 scheme or under 1980 scheme since he does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the schemes. According to respondent No. 1, under both the schemes, a freedom fighter has been defined to be a person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months. The petitioners jail sufferings put together were for a total period of 60 days only and there being no evidence on record produced by the petitioner of his externment for three months, he was rightly refused pension. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. The petitioners jail sufferings put together were for a total period of 60 days only and there being no evidence on record produced by the petitioner of his externment for three months, he was rightly refused pension. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 1972 scheme which came into force w. e. f. 15th August, 1972 provided for grant of pension to freedom fighters or in the event of their death to their families. For the purpose of scheme, movements for merger of erstwhile princely States within the Indian Union after 15th August. 1947 was also considered as part of national freedom movement. A freedom fighter having suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months was considered eligible for pension Explanation 4 under the heading eligibility provided broken periods of imprisonment to be totalled up and counted as one. Even a person who had remained underground for more than six months, having been declared a proclaimed offender or upon whom an award for arrest was announced or for whose detention order was issued, but not served was also eligible for the pension. A person hiving been externed from his District for a period of six months or more was also eligible for grant of pension. Applications for grant of pension under 1972 scheme were required to be sent, in duplicate, to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi with a copy to the Chief Secretary to the State Government or Union Territory concerned. The same also provided for the furnishing of documents in order to substantiate the claim of having suffered imprisonment/detention etc. or having been externed. For the purpose of proving suffering of imprisonment, a certificate from the concerned Jail authorities, District Magistrates or the State Government and in case of non-availability of such certificates, co-prisoners certificate from a sitting M. P. or M L A or from an Ex. M. P. or Ex M. L. A. specifying the jail period was considered sufficient. For the purpose of externment, application was required to be accompanied with an affidavit alongwith a copy of order of externment and in the event of non-availability of the externment order any other corroborative evidence was to be considered sufficient. 6. M. P. or Ex M. L. A. specifying the jail period was considered sufficient. For the purpose of externment, application was required to be accompanied with an affidavit alongwith a copy of order of externment and in the event of non-availability of the externment order any other corroborative evidence was to be considered sufficient. 6. The petitioner substantiated his claim by appending to his applications addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi and to the Deputy Commissioner, Tehri Garhwal number of documents, which may be noticed. Certiflcate issued by the Superintendent, District Jail, Tehri (Garhwal) which was authenticated by the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal certifying that the petitioner suffered imprisonment in District Jail Tehri for a total period of 2 months 5 days from 4th January, 1947 to 23rd February, 1947. 21st April, 1947 to 22nd April, 1947 and 20th August, 1947 to 29th August, 1947. Further certifying that the petitioner never tendered any apology, nor ever gave any undertaking for his release from the jail and the princely State of Tehri Garhwal merged in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 1st December, 1949. A copy of R I R No 43 (Annexure P-5) dated 24-9-2004 Bk from Police Station, Sundernagar, which was registered on the basis of report Roznamcha No. 21 dated 24-9-2004 Bk on the basis of information received from Amar Chand Constable No 131, Mandi to the effect that at 4 00 p. m., the petitioner entered Sundernagar, who had been duly served with an order dstcd 17 9-. 0)4 Bk passed by the A. D. M Mandi prohibiting him to enter the said territory for a period of three months, which order had also been duly entered in the report roznamcha Despite service of the said order, the petitioner disobeyed the same and entered the territory of the State The petitioner consequently was arrested under the provisions of section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was brought to the Police Station, for having violated section 4 of the Mandi State Public Safety Ordinance A certificate (Annexure P-7) issued by one Gayatri Dutt, the then Superintendent of Police in princely State of Mandi certifying that the petitioners presence in Mandi was found to be undesirable because of his having participated in the Praja Mandal Movement, therefore, he was externed from Mandi State in a vehicle and was left at Pathankot (Punjab), which act was performed in his presence. According to this certificate, the petitioner was a young boy then clad in Khaddar and according to his opinion, he gave an impression of a better freedom fighter than many of the so called freedom fighters. 7. Annexure P-24 is an affidavit of one Shri Krisban Chandra Vaidya, who was the General Secretary of Mandi State Praja Mandal. Lateron he became Secretary of the Himalayan Hill States Regional Council and also remained Deputy Speaker of Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha. Accord ing to the deponent, the petitioner was known to him since 1947 since he had taken prominent part alongwith him (deponent/ in the Praja Mandal Movement in the Hill State of Himalayan Region including erstwhile princely States which iateron merged in the Indian Union and constituted Himachal Pradesh. After having suffered three times imprisonment in Tebri-Garbwal, he was externed from the said State of Tehri-Garhwal and entered Bilaspur From Bilaspur, he was externed and entered Suket State. From Suket, the petitioner was externed and entered Mandi State From Mandi, the petitioner was externed and was left at Pathankot. Krishan Chandra Vaidya has further deposed that the petitioner was arrested seven times. 8. Affidavit (Annexure P-25) of Gopi Ram, a member of Parliament from Mandi Constituency of Himachal Pradesh narrates that the petitioner was a veteran freedom fighter having taken part in the Praja Mandal Movement of the Himalayan Hill States Regional Council including Tehri- Garhwal and Uttar Kashi in Uttar Pradesh. 8. Affidavit (Annexure P-25) of Gopi Ram, a member of Parliament from Mandi Constituency of Himachal Pradesh narrates that the petitioner was a veteran freedom fighter having taken part in the Praja Mandal Movement of the Himalayan Hill States Regional Council including Tehri- Garhwal and Uttar Kashi in Uttar Pradesh. According to him, the petitioner after having suffered imprisonments and arrests in princely State of Teliri-Garhwal was externed there from. Subsequent thereto, he entered princely States of Mandi through Bilaspur and Suket During this period, he was under the shadow of police but despite that he took active part in the Praja Mandal Movement. Period of imprisonment and externment combined together was more than six months. 9. Other documents upon which the petitioner placed reliance are about his jail suffering and taking part in freedom movement within Uttar Pradesh. Annexure P-26 is an affidavit of Shri Sunder Lai Bahuguna who himself was the Publicity Secretary of Tehri Rajya Praja Mandal from September 1947 to January 1948 till the merger of Tehri-Garhwal with Uttar Pradesh. He also remained the General Secretary of District Con- gress Committee, Tehri-Garhwal from 1949 to 1956. According to him the petitioner was known to him since he had suffered imprisonment in Tehri-Garhwal State for a number of times before and after independence. After 15th August, 1947, the petitioner was an active freedom fighter in the Shirola Hill States Peoples Political Movement for merger into Indian Union. In his affidavit Shri Sunder Lai Bahuguna has further deposed that the petitioner was arrested on 18th August, 1947 for an offence under section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code and was kept in police lock up for 3 days alongwith other Praja MandaS workers. On 20th August, i947 the petitioner and others were taken to Tehri Jail where they were tried in camera inside Jail. According to the deponent in Tehri-Garhwal State freedom fighters fighting for civil liberties were falsely tried under section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code like one Shri Dev Suman, who died in Tehri-Garhwal jail in July, 1944 after 84 days fast unto death. The petitioner was similarly tried under the said provision and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs 500. The petitioner was later on released on 29th August 1947 after the intervention of All India States People Conference, New Delhi. 10. The petitioner was similarly tried under the said provision and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs 500. The petitioner was later on released on 29th August 1947 after the intervention of All India States People Conference, New Delhi. 10. Annexure P-27 is an affidavit of Ram Chandra Uniyal, who was a freedom fighter in erstwhile Tehri-Garhwal State and is drawing a pension as such, under the 1972 scheme. Ram Chandra Uniyal represented Uttar Kashi Constituency Assembly during 1959 to 196. and remained President of the District Congress Committee (I), Uttar Kashi during 1971 to 1980. According to him, the petitioner was known to him for the last more than 40 years, who had suffered jail imprisonment in Tehri Garhwal number of times before and after the Indian Independence As per this affidavit, on 15th August, 1947, the State Police had arrested the Chairman of Praja Mandal and in protest against that detention, agitation was started in which the petitioner was an active participant The petitioner was arrested on 18th August, 1947 under section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code and was kept in police lock up. On 20th August 1947, he was take’ to Tehri Jail and was tried in camera and was later on sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 11. Annexure P-28 is an affidavit of Lokendra Datt Saklani who was a Member of Legislative Assembly in Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha having been elected in March, 1985 and having occupied the office of President of District Congress (I) Committee of Tehri-Garhwal District. His version is similar to that of Sarvshri Sunder Lai Bahuguna and Ram Chandra Uniyal. The further version given by him in his certificate Annexure P-29 is to the effect that after the petitioner had been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, the State Government assigned the duty of recovering fine to the petitioners father, who was then serving as Divisional Forest Officer on a newly created post of Realisation Officer. Besides the petitioner, other persons were also sentenced Including the petitioners brother. Refusal of the petitioners father to comply with the orders resulted in his dismissal from the service 12. The petitioners application dated 2nd January, 1974 which he had also addressed to Dr. Besides the petitioner, other persons were also sentenced Including the petitioners brother. Refusal of the petitioners father to comply with the orders resulted in his dismissal from the service 12. The petitioners application dated 2nd January, 1974 which he had also addressed to Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar, the then Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh was also accompanied along with a certificate dated 15th February, 1977 given by Prof Bhagwati Prasad Panthari, the then Vice-Chancellor, Kashi Vidyapeeth, Banaras certifying the petitioner to be belonging to a political sufferers family, who had refused to accept any remuneration for the services of his family. 13. The petitioner also placed reliance upon a certificate issued by Satya Dev Bushahri, Member of Legislative Assembly, Himachal Pradesh and the Chairman, Committee on Public Undertakings. According to the certificate, the petitioner was externed from the State of Uttar Pradesh for political reasons and thereafter while taking part in freedom movement within Bilaspur State he alongwith the petitioner was arrested. In the same year both were again arrested by the erstwhile Suket State and were externed there from. 14. From the narration of the aforementioned facts, there is no manner of doubt that as per the jail record, the actual period of detention put together of the petitioner was 2 months and 5 days, which fact is also not disputed by the respondents, One of the periods of Jail suffering is from 20th August, 1947 to 29th August, 1947 for an offence under section 120 A of the Indian Penal Code The circumstances of award of sentence for this offence have been narrated in the affidavits of three eminent persona lities, namely, S/Shrl Sander Lai Bahuguna, Ram Chandra Uniyal and Lokendra Datt Saklani. The petitioner, after an in camera trial in jail, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, but was released on 29th August, 1947 due to the intervention of AH India State Praja Mandal was a branch of All India States Peoples Conference. The petitioner was also put under arrest in the erstwhile princely States of Bilaspur, Suket and Mandi and was externed there from. Before the petitioner entered these three princely States for taking part in the Praja Mandal Movement, the petitioner was extern ed from Tehri-Garhwal. The petitioner was also put under arrest in the erstwhile princely States of Bilaspur, Suket and Mandi and was externed there from. Before the petitioner entered these three princely States for taking part in the Praja Mandal Movement, the petitioner was extern ed from Tehri-Garhwal. The submissions made by the petitioner on the strength of the documents are not in dispute by the respondents. According to the respondents, the jail sufferings being less than 6 months and there being no proof for externment, the petitioner was held not entitled to pension under 1972 scheme The application moved by him for grant of pension under 1972 scheme was also held to have been received beyond the time fixed for this purpose. 15. In case reference is made to the explanation under the heading eligibility, in 1972 scheme, it is clear that the detention under the orders of competent authority will be considered as imprisonment and period of normal remission will be treated as part of actual imprisonment. In the case of a trial ending in conviction, under-trial period will be counted towards actual imprisonment suffered and the broken periods of imprisonment will be totalled up and counted as one. Under 1980 scheme also explanations 1 to 4 under the eligibility clause are to the same effect. 16. The purpose of introducing the scheme was to extend benefit of pension as a token of respect to those persons, who had either taken part in the struggle of independence of the country or taken part in the merger movement of erstwhile princely States in the Indian Union. It being a piece of beneficent scheme meant for the benefit of persons having taken part in freedom movement and suffered therein, therefore, the provisions of the scheme are required to be construed in such a manner so as to favour the freedom fighters. As held in Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd v. Venkatiah and another. AIR 1964 SC 1272 a piece of social legislation intended to confer specified benefits on workmen to whom it applies should not be construed id a technical or a narrow sense, but should receive a liberal and benefioent construction from the Courts While construing social legislations, liberal and beneficent construction deserve to be placed so as to advance the cause of justice and give benefit to those persons for whose benefit the legislation has been brought. This view has been followed in Chitan J Vaswani v State of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 2473, and in Gurcharan Singh v. Kamla Singh, (1976) 2 SCC 152. 17. The main thrust under both the schemes of 1972 and 1980 is for providing benefit for the sufferings during the freedom struggle. In case suffering is partly under the one head and partly under the other, there is no reason why by giving liberal and beneficent construction both periods under two different heads cannot be clubbed together In case a person has suffered jail imprisonment and was also externed, the period of jail suffering as also the period of externment deserve to be clubbed together in similar terms as in the case of broken periods of imprisonment to be totalled up for computing the qualifying period of jail suffering. 18. In the instant case, till the month of August, 1947, the petitioner had undergone jail suffering on three different occasions for a period of 2 months 5 days Later on, his suffering started when he was ordered to be externed for a period of three months from Mandi State and also for different periods from Bilaspur State and Suket State Taking the over all view, on the basis of the aforementioned documents, we have no hesi tation in holding that the total period of suffering by the petitioner of imprisonment as also externment from Tehri-Garhwal and later on from Bilaspur, Suket and Mandi taken together was more than 6 months It had been made the basis by him in moving the application on 2nd January, 1974 and on 13th March, 1974 which he forwarded to the respective Governments of Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh for being forwarded to respondent No. 1. 19. The applications addressed by the petitioner to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh were within the time limit as pro vided for receiving the applications under 1^72 scheme by respondent No. 1, namely, 31st March, 1974. The peculiar objection raised by respondent No. 1 that the application ought to have been sent to the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs with a copy to the State Government is also not to be construed too technically so as to defeat the object in granting pension to a freedom fighter. The peculiar objection raised by respondent No. 1 that the application ought to have been sent to the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs with a copy to the State Government is also not to be construed too technically so as to defeat the object in granting pension to a freedom fighter. In case applications had been forwarded by the petitioner to the State Governments without for warding a copy thereof to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the same could have been forwarded by the respective State Governments to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner on this ground, as such, was not proper. 20. In view of what has been said above, the orders passed by respondent No. 1 declining to grant pension to the petitioner conveyed to him through Annexures P-1X, P-22 and P-23 are quashed* and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled for being granted the pension under 1972 scheme from 2nd of January, 1974, the date of submission of his application, till the said scheme remained operative and from 1st August, ) 980 onwards during his life time under 1980 scheme- We order accordingly and direct respondent No. 1 to work out the arrears of pension becoming due and pay-able to the petitioner and to pay the same within a period of four months from today and continue paying the pension in future. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Order accordingly. -