JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule. 2.On request of learned Counsel Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3.It is painful to see the petitioner before us, who appears to have crossed the age of 70 years, with a begging bowl for freedom fighter's pension, receivable by her husband, deceased Babasaheb Gena Mote, resident of Pargaon, Taluka Bhoom, District Osmanabad. The petitioner is pursuing her husband's application, made to the Collector, Osmanabad on 25-10-1990 for freedom fighter's pension. It is the most pathetic narration of a widow of a patriot, who died on 8-3-1991 yearning for some solace for livelihood in the form of freedom fighter's pension. 4.The petitioner has stated in the petition that her husband had virtually plunged into the freedom movement and had spent the best part of his life in freedom struggle of this country. It is also stated that her deceased husband had fought during the Hyderabad Liberation Movement and had faced Razakar's of Nizam to save peoples from tyranny of the rule of Nizam and his henchmen. She says in her petition that she is more than 68 years of her age and she cannot do any physical labour work for her livelihood and that she has no source of income for her livelihood. We are indeed, deeply moved by the pathetic story of the widow of a patriot freedom fighter. 5.The petitioner has stated that her husband's case was recommended on 6-10-1990 by the Gaurav Samiti for freedom fighter's pension. Her husband had submitted all the required information and documents to the Collector Osmanabad. The Collector called upon the petitioner's husband, by his letter of November, 1993 [Exhibit "B" to the petition] to submit two documents, namely, certificates from two freedom fighters who were honoured by the Sanman Patras and birth certificate or some proof of his age. The Collector had requested the petitioner's husband to furnish the aforesaid documents within 15 days. This letter was received by the petitioner herself, as by that time her husband had died. The petitioner had addressed a letter dated 9-12-1993 to the Collector Osmanabad, complying with the requirements prescribed by the Collector. She had also submitted a death certificate as proof of death of her husband. This letter was received by the petitioner herself, as by that time her husband had died. The petitioner had addressed a letter dated 9-12-1993 to the Collector Osmanabad, complying with the requirements prescribed by the Collector. She had also submitted a death certificate as proof of death of her husband. As per the requirements, the petitioner had submitted affidavits of Shri Dadarao Maroti Arsul and Bhagwan Nivrutti Sonne- both freedom fighters and recipients of Sanman Patra and freedom fighters pension. Her application did not leave anything to be complied with and she had exactly furnished all the documents to the Collector as per his requirement. 6.It appears from the letter dated 30-3-1994 addressed by the Collector, Osmanabad to the Desk Officer of the State of Maharashtra, copy whereof was forwarded to the petitioner, to say that in the meeting of 16-2-1994, Gaurav Samiti had given its recommendations. The Desk Officer of the State of Maharashtra wrote back to the Collector, Osmanabad as late as on 27-11-1995 that the file of the petitioner's husband was sent back for getting from the petitioner compliance of the requirements given in the Government Resolution dated 4-7-1995. The petitioner widow was waiting for some hopeful reply from the Government, but she received a copy for her information of the said letter addressed by the Desk Officer to the Collector, Osmanabad. It appears that the State Government wanted compliance with the conditions mentioned in the subsequent Government Resolution dated 4-7-1995, which the petitioner or her husband could not do as they had satisfied all the conditions which were then in existence at the time of their making such application. 7.The petitioner, who is on the verge of starvation, has desperately knocked the doors of Justice by filing the present writ petition on 14-12-1995, to challenge the legality, validity, appropriateness and reasonableness of the letter dated 27-11-1995 which virtually denied her the pension. 8.Though the respondents have been served, no return has been filed. We have perused closely the whole petition, which contains all the necessary documents required for the freedom fighter's pension under the "1972 Scheme", which was recognized as "Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme". It is to the credit of the petitioner-widow that she has complied with all the conditions and no particulars of any nature are lacking in accordance with the then existing scheme. It is to the credit of the petitioner-widow that she has complied with all the conditions and no particulars of any nature are lacking in accordance with the then existing scheme. We are, therefore at loss to understanding why and for what purpose the Desk Officer had returned the file to the Collector, Osmanabad and on what basis he had demanded compliance with the conditions which were subsequently introduced, without even stating what condition should be complied with. The petitioner is impugning the said letter [Exhibit "E"] in this writ petition, written by the Desk Officer the Government of Maharashtra to the Collector, Osmanabad. 9.Since the facts have not been controverted or disputed at all by the authorities, who are respondents herein, there is absolutely no doubt that the petitioner's husband was a freedom fighter and had participated in the freedom struggle, both at the national level as well as during the Hyderabad Liberation Movement. The petitioner-widow of said freedom fighter has furnished all the details and particulars including the certificates of two recipients of this honour. We therefore, fail to understand why the widow of the petitioner is being tossed from one table to another. From the facts narrated hereinabove, we have no slightest doubt that the petitioner is lawfully entitled to the benefit of the freedom fighter's pension on behalf of her late husband. 10.It is unbecoming of the State machinery to treat the freedom fighter's application for pension in such a casual manner. We say so "because the Supreme Court has, in case of (Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India)1, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2127 tried to emphasise on the State machinery, the spirit of the pension scheme. The Supreme Court has also directed the said machinery to dispose of such applications as expeditiously as possible within three months from the date of applications. The Supreme Court in case of Mukund Lal (cited supra) has observed. The Supreme Court has also directed the said machinery to dispose of such applications as expeditiously as possible within three months from the date of applications. The Supreme Court in case of Mukund Lal (cited supra) has observed. ".....The spirit of the scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind of programme of compensation ......The scheme should retain its high objectives with which it was modified...." The Supreme Court has further aptly observed as under : ".....What is more, if the scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it ill-behoves the Government to raise pleas of limitation against such claims. In fact, the Government, if it is possible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fighter or their dependents and approach them with the pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same. That would be the true spirit of working out such Schemes....". 11.We wish to pointedly draw attention of the Desk Officer of the State Government who had addressed the impugned letter to the Collector, Osmanabad, requiring the widow -petitioner to make compliance with the conditions of the Government Resolution dated 4-7-1995 though her application was made in the year 1990, to the fact that the Supreme Court has exerted the State Machinery to find out freedom fighters and honour them by giving them some solace in the form of pension, so that they themselves, if alive, must have become disabled due to their old age and to the widows like the present petitioner or the unmarried daughters of deceased freedom fighters, instead of requiring them to fill up the forms. This is the highest spirit of the scheme which the Supreme Court has tried to stress upon the State machinery, but the work of the scheme is far from satisfactory. If, during the 50th year of independence, the freedom fighters do not get the reply from the State Machinery for years together, the dream of their pension would perhaps never be realized considering the speed of the State Government. If, during the 50th year of independence, the freedom fighters do not get the reply from the State Machinery for years together, the dream of their pension would perhaps never be realized considering the speed of the State Government. 12.We, therefore, make the Rule absolute and quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 27-11-1995 and direct the respondents to give freedom fighter's pension to the petitioner with all arrears under the relevant scheme, applicable to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the receipt of the writ of this Court. It is further clarified that the petitioner's claim for pension will be from the date of her husband's application, which was recommended by the Gaurav Samiti on 6-10-1990. The petitioner is entitled to the cost from the respondent No. 1, which is quantified at Rs. 1,500/-. Petition allowed.