JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, ACJ.—Petitioner Nanku claims that he is a freedom fighter and is, therefore, entitled to the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (hereinafter "pension") under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter "1980 Scheme"; as he participated in the movement for the merger of erstwhile princely State of Bilaspur with the Union of India. He was convicted under section 81 of the Defence of India Act, 1939 and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months. He was also externed from Bilaspur State as per the oral orders of the erstwhile Ruler of Bilaspur. 2. The petitioner submitted an application to the first respondent with a copy to the second respondent on 26th March, 1982 for the grant of pension enclosing therewith the requisite certificate. The case of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 1 through letter of 21st July, 1986 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit the requisite certificate as required under the Scheme in support of his claim (Annexure PB). This decision of respondent No. 1 is neither based on facts nor it was in consonance with the Scheme. As a matter of fact, the case was rejected without application of mind. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 171 of 1987, Nanku v. Union of India claiming pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 as he had participated in the Praja Mandal Movement for the merger of the erstwhile princely State of Bilaspur with the Union of India mentioning therein that the petitioner had been convicted under section 81 of the Defence of India Act, 19j9 and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months. The petitioner remained in jail for 24 days and he was released on payment of fine. Thereafter, he was externed from Bilaspur State in December, 1947 till 12tb October, 1948 when the State was merged in the Union of India. These were the verbal orders since that I was the practice commonly prevalent in the State. Civil Writ Petition I No. 171 of 198/ was decided by this Court on 16-2-1989 with the following observations i "Annexure-PG/1, a representation submitted by the petitioner I to the Government of India, shows that he had produced the 1 certificate of one Shri Kahna Ram, who had been convicted 1 and sentenced for five years imprisonment for his activities in j the freedom movement. He had also produced Annexure A, a certificate issued by the jail authorities, to show that he was 1 convicted under section 81 of the Defence of India Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. He had, however, undergone imprisonment for a period of 24 days only. He had, alongwith his representation Annexure-PG/i, produced other certificates as corroboratory evidence. None of these documents had been considered before Annexure-H-1, order rejecting his application, was passed. We, therefore, quash Annexure-H-1 and direct respondent No. 1 to pass fresh orders after considering the certificates produced by the petitioner within six months from today" 3. Despite the direction of this Court, petitioners application was rejected by a letter No. H7/B/342/82-RF. (HP) on August 3, 1990 (Annexure-PD) on the ground that the sufferings of the petitioner being less than six months, he was not eligible to get the Samman Pension and his claim for externment from Bilaspur State was also rejected on the ground that his both claims were contradictory. The petitioner has assailed this decision contending that the same is vague, arbitrary, against facts and against the Scheme. As a matter of fact, the petitioners case has been rejected on the same grounds on which respondent No 1 had rejected his case which were the subject-matter of Civil Writ Petition No. 171 of 1987 and the direction given by this Court to respondent No. 1 was to consider the certificates of one Shri Kahana Ram and the jail authorities alongwith other facts as corroboratory evidence. The impugned decision discloses that respondent No. 1 did not adhere to the direction of this Court, otherwise there could be no reason to dismiss his claim for the pension, hence the order being illegal, arbitrary and against the Scheme, deserves to be set-aside. Specifically, it has been contended that the petitioner is a freedom fighter within the meaning of the Scheme. He suffered imprisonment on account of his participation in the movement for the merger of erstwhile princely State of Bilaspur in the Union of India He was also externed out of the State of Bilaspur by the Ruler and remained out for more than six months. (Cause-B of eligibility criteria read with letter No 3/8/72-ii, dated 25th August, 1972). He suffered imprisonment on account of his participation in the movement for the merger of erstwhile princely State of Bilaspur in the Union of India He was also externed out of the State of Bilaspur by the Ruler and remained out for more than six months. (Cause-B of eligibility criteria read with letter No 3/8/72-ii, dated 25th August, 1972). Certificates of Kahna Ram and others (Annexures-B, C and D) and the jail certificate demonstrate that the case of the petitioner is covered under the Scheme. It was on the basis of these certificates produced by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. .171 of 1987 that this Court had felt satisfied that the petitioner was a freedom fighter and was entitled to pension. It w7as after coming to this conclusion that a direction to consider the case of the petitioner was given, otherwise no such direction could have been issued in case this Court had not accepted the contention of the petitioner that he was a freedom fighter and his claim fell within the Scheme and was, therefore, entitled to pension, 4. Respondent No, 1 has stated in its reply that the petitioner applied for the grant of pension under the 1980 Scheme, In his application the petitioner had claimed internment under police watch for six months from June, 1946 to December, 1946. He also claimed imprisonment under section 81 of the Defence of India Act, 1939, He was fined Rs. 5C0. He was released from jail on payment of fine as per record after undergoing 24 days imprisonment. He claimed externmect from Bilaspur in Civil Writ Petition No 171 of 1987 but not in his application which he had submitted to the Ministry, in which, as slated above, he had claimed internment under the police watch during this period. Thus, the claim of the petitioner of externment and internment during the same period was self contradictory and was not credible at all. As regards imprisonment, it was less than six months and the fine imposed on him was paid disentitling the petitioner to claim pension on this count also. Thus, the claim of the petitioner of externment and internment during the same period was self contradictory and was not credible at all. As regards imprisonment, it was less than six months and the fine imposed on him was paid disentitling the petitioner to claim pension on this count also. In decision of J 6-12-1989 in Civil Writ Petition No 171 of 1987, the petitioner has submitted certificates of Shri Kahana Ram (Annexure B-l), Prem Lai Gupta, Khushi Mohammed (Annexure D-l), but none of these certificates have been reported to have been considered and in that position, this Court had directed the consideration of the case of the petitioner afresh after considering the certificates produced by him. Accordingly, the case was considered in the light of the evidence submitted by the petitioner and it was concluded that the petitioner had paid the fine and had suffered imprisonment only for 24 days and, therefore, he was not entitled to pension on these counts. As per the decision of the High Court of Kerala, dated 6-3-1992 in original petition No. 5547/88, Pappu Kesavan Peruveli Parambil, Paravoor, Punnapra P. O.9 Alappuzha v. Union of India- the reliability and acceptability of the certificates is a matter for the Government of India to decide as the political pension cannot be granted just for asking and public funds cannot be expended except for good and legitimate reasons (Annexure K-HI) In the present petition, the petitioner has claimed simple imprisonment under section 81 of the Defence of India Act, 1939 while he suffered 24 days imprisonment and released on payment of fine. He further claimed externment from Bilaspur State for 11 months from December, 1947 to October, 1948, till the State was merged with the Indian Union. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner has changed his stand and he claimed externment only with a view to gain a favourable direction from this Court. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner has suffered 24 days imprisonment and he paid Rs. 500 as fine and he was released from jail before he could complete the total period of imprisonment, therefore, the certificates submitted by the petitioner cannot be depended upon and his case was rightly rejected. 5. It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner has suffered 24 days imprisonment and he paid Rs. 500 as fine and he was released from jail before he could complete the total period of imprisonment, therefore, the certificates submitted by the petitioner cannot be depended upon and his case was rightly rejected. 5. Through the rejoinder, it has been stated that the petitioner claimed internment under police watch from June, (946 to December, 1946 for six months and externment from December, 1947 to October, 1948, therefore, there is no contradiction This stand has been taken not only in this writ petition but also in Civil Writ Petition No, 17 J of 1987 The stand of the respondent as rejected by this Court while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No. 171 of 1957, otherwise there could not no direction to respondent No 1 to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. It has been stated that number of freedom fighters have been granted pension on the certificates issued by Shri Kahana Ram and Shri Khushi Mohammed but it is strange that these very certificates are not being accepted in the case of the petitioner. The facts in Kerala High Court judgment are entirely different and are not applicable to the present case. It has been held in Civil Writ Petitions No, 881 of 1986 and 423 of 1990 that Shri Kahana Ram is a prominent freedom fighter and is a competent person to issue certificates under the Scheme. The petitioner was not released on tendering of apology. He had served the sentence for 24 days and for the remaining period he had paid the fine which is also a kind of punishment. The petitioner could be deemed to have suffered the imprisonment for a period of six months and not for 24 days The approach of the respondent is highly arbitrary and does not enhance tenor and spirit of the Rule. This is, in a nutshell, the respective stand of the parties in this case. 6. In support of her case, Ms. Bandana Kuthiala placed reliance on certain decisions which may now be referred to in order to appreciate the matter in controversy. 7. In (1991) 4 SCC 366, Surja and others s. Union of India and another, the petitioners had participated in the Arya Samaj movement within the erstwhile Nizams State of Hyderabad. 6. In support of her case, Ms. Bandana Kuthiala placed reliance on certain decisions which may now be referred to in order to appreciate the matter in controversy. 7. In (1991) 4 SCC 366, Surja and others s. Union of India and another, the petitioners had participated in the Arya Samaj movement within the erstwhile Nizams State of Hyderabad. They were convicted under different provisions of the criminal law then prevailing within the Nizams State and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. While they were serving the sentence, general amnesty was declared by the then Nizam on his birthday and they were released. The petitioners claimed pension under the 1980 Scheme stating that they had suffered imprisonment for more than six months and their release before the expiry of six months did not disentitle them from claiming the pension, more so when the release was on account of the general amnesty and not because of remission claimed by them. The Union of India took the stand that the petitioners had not undergone imprisonment for a period of six months, as required, therefore, they were not entitled for the grant of pension. There was no doubt about their participation in the Arya Samaj movement. The only question for interpretation was whether the petitioners could be deprived of the pension sought by them within the meaning of the relevant clause providing that 1 "A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment for six months in the mainland jails before independence in the struggle for independence is eligible to be admitted to the benefits of the pension." 8. While interpreting the qualifying condition of six months imprisonment, it was held that if a person was sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more and if the period of actual imprisonment was reduced not on account of his claiming any remission, he should be deemed to have fulfilled the qualifying period of imprisonment for six months. 9. In JT (1993) 3 SC 342, Mukund Lal Bhandari and others v. Union of India and others, the question for determination was as to from which date a freedom fighter is entitled for the grant of pension ; viz whether it could be awarded to him retrospectively from the date of the application made by him. 9. In JT (1993) 3 SC 342, Mukund Lal Bhandari and others v. Union of India and others, the question for determination was as to from which date a freedom fighter is entitled for the grant of pension ; viz whether it could be awarded to him retrospectively from the date of the application made by him. In the opinion of the Court, no retrospective benefit could be awarded though it could be awarded from the date of application which may have been preferred after the period of limitation prescribed for entertaining the same. As to the processing of the application, it was held that the same should be scrutinised by the Union of India in the light of the supporting evidence but it ha§ not been said in terms that the court is completely debarred from examining the genuineness of the documents to see the correctness of the decisions arrived at by the respondents. This decision, as a matter of fact, does not apply to the present case since the documents annexed by the petitioner alongwith his application have been considered by this Court while deciding Civil Writ Petition No. 171 of 1987 and it was after considering the genuineness of those documents that respondent No 1 was directed to consider the case of the petitioner. 10. In AIR 1990 SC 746, R. Narayanan v. Union of India and another, the apex Court rejected the contention of the Union of India that the petitioner set-up the claim under Clause 3 (e) of para-4 of the Scheme by way of an afterthought since his initial claim was under clause (a) thereof, holding that a claimant may have missed to mention it out of ignorance of the several heads under which the claim of pension could be made. He had applied initially for the grant of pension under clause (a), therefore, even if the case of a freedom fighter is rejected on one ground, he could not be prevented from claiming the pension by setting-out another ground under the Scheme in case he is eligible to claim it. Dealing with the object of the Scheme, the Court observed (para 10, page 749) that: "10. Dealing with the object of the Scheme, the Court observed (para 10, page 749) that: "10. The scheme has been formulated with a view to acknowledge the services rendered to the country by patriotic citizens during the freedom movement and who had suffered at the hands of the British Rulers in one way or the other and to compensate them in some measure for their sacrifices for the sake of the country........." Dealing with the Scheme, a Division Bench of this Court held in 1^92 (2) Sim. L. C. 339, Shri Budhi Sagar Nautiyal v. Union of India and another as under: "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 in a technical or a narrow sense but should receive a liberal and beneficent 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. 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 " 11. After noticing the aforesaid decisions, we turn to the facts of this case. The petitioner was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months, it is not disputed. Similarly* it is not disputed that be remained in the jail for 24 days and he was released on payment of fine. He did cot seek any remission for his release. As a matter of fact, he was released on payment of fine, which is also a punishment in lieu of the imprisonment. But for paying the fine, he could not have been released and would have continued to suffer the remaining sentence. We think the interpretation sought to be given by respondent No. I that the petitioner could have actually suffered imprisonment for six months irrespective of the payment of fine in lieu of the remaining sentence, is patently wrong for the aforesaid reasons* Alternatively, the petitioner has suffered externment from December, 1947 to October, 1948 and before that internment from June, 1946 to December, 1946. The periods being different, the contention that the petitioner could not be expected to be under internment and externment at the same time is not correct. Similarly, as held by the apex Court in R. Narayanans case (supra), the petitioner could have moved an application on one ground and then on the other ground in case he is not in a position to secure the pension on the first ground. Similarly, as held by the apex Court in R. Narayanans case (supra), the petitioner could have moved an application on one ground and then on the other ground in case he is not in a position to secure the pension on the first ground. Moreover, it is not possible for a freedom fighter to remember the nature of sufferings meted oat by him for all these years and set-up all the grounds for claiming pension at one and the same time without giving him liberty to set-up only one of the many grounds which he may feel more significant We took care to go through the documents attached with this petition as well as with Civil Writ Petition No. 171 of 1987- We are of the considered opinion chat the petitioner has established his case for the grant of freedom fighters pension and the order rejecting his case deserves to be set-aside Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the order rejecting his case is set-aside Respondent No I is directed to grant freedom fighters pension to the petitioner from the date of his application. All proceedings be completed within a period of three months from today. No costs. Writ petition allowed. -