Judgment :- AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. 1. The writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent dated 10.10.1989 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to sanction and pay S.S.S. Pension to the petitioner from 24.05.1979 onwards. 2. According to the petitioner, she has satisfied the requirement under the scheme for the sanction of the pension and, therefore, she is entitled to get the S.S.S. Pension from the date of her application. 3. The 1st respondent has filed a counter, opposing the prayer of the petitioner. The Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 was further liberalised in 1980 and it was renamed as ‘Swatatrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980’ and was given effect to from 01.08.1980. As per the provisions of the said scheme, pension is granted to a freedom fighter who had suffered (a) minimum six months imprisonment (including detention/under trial period); (b) minimum six months externment/internment; (c) minimum six m onths abscondance against warrant of arrest; (d) loss of Government job (including job in local bodies); loss of property as a result of attachment or confiscation; (f) minimum punishment of 10 strokes of canning/flogging/whipping; or (g) permanent incapacitation due to lathi charge/firing. Therefore, the applicants are required to furnish official documentary evidence in support of their claimed sufferings. The eligibility of the applicants are scrutinised by the Government on the basis of requisite proof of documents produced before the Government and policy decisions taken from time to time. 4. The petitioner, in her application dated 24.09.1981 claimed that her husband late Mottaiyan Muthuriyar had suffered rigorous imprisonment at Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli and she had also submitted a copy of the extract of convict register from the concerned jail in which actual period of suffering was shown as 30.04.1943 to 06.10.1943 excluding 21 days of remission. However the detailed case and section number under which her husband was imprisoned was shown as Section 380, I.P.C. and Calendar Case No. 47 of 1942. The State Government also, by their letter dated 19.03.1982, mentioned that the offences under which the petitioners husband was convicted does not relate to offences in connection with the freedom struggle. It has also been mentioned that the offences under Section 380, I.P.C. were theft in dwelling houses etc. The State Government, therefore, did not recommend pension for the petitioner. The State Government also, by their letter dated 19.03.1982, mentioned that the offences under which the petitioners husband was convicted does not relate to offences in connection with the freedom struggle. It has also been mentioned that the offences under Section 380, I.P.C. were theft in dwelling houses etc. The State Government, therefore, did not recommend pension for the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the petitioner was informed on 24.11.1982 that her case does not come under the purview of ‘Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980’ as the imprisonment suffered by her late husband was not connected with the freedom struggle and the State Government also did not recommend her case. She was also informed of the position of her case on 30.10.1989 that it could not be considered for the grant of Samman Pension as she has not produced any acceptable documentary evidence in support of her claim and the State Government has also not recommended her case. 5. As already seen only those Freedom Fighters who had proven sufferings of six months or more in connection with the freedom struggle are eligible for grant of SSS pension. As far as the petitioners case is concerned, her husbands suffering was not in connection with the freedom struggle and as a result, the case was not considered for grant of pension. This apart, the criteria for grant of pension from the State and Central Government are different and grant of pension from State Government does not make one automatically eligible for Central pension. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has sanctioned family pension to several persons on the basis of co-prisoners certificate and jail certificates. In this regard, if the petitioner furnishes the details of other persons who were sanctioned pension from Central Revenue on the basis of similar certificates as that of her husband, then necessary action can be taken to re-examine those cases on merits. 6. Therefore, we are of the view that the orders dated 24.11.1982 and 30.10.1989 are just and legal and hence cannot be quashed as prayed for. The decision of the 1st respondent in rejecting the petitioners claim is perfectly in order as the jail sentence of the petitioners husband was not in relation to the freedom struggle. 7. Therefore, the writ petition fails and hence the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.