ORDER The petitioner, Dayawati Devi, claiming herself to be a freedom fighter, has challenged the order, dated 19.3.96, whereby the Union of India in the Ministry of Home, Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighter pension. It appears that the petitioner came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 4190 of 1995 and by order, dated 13.11.95, a Division Bench of this Court directed the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, a copy of which is made Aanexcre-3 to this writ application. It further appears that the petitioner applied for grant of pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme prescribed by the Government of India in 1983 along with the relevant documents to the State Government. The State Government, by its order, dated 8.6.94, recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension, a copy of which is made Annexure-2 to this writ application. From a mere perusal of the order, it appears that the documents filed by the petitioner before the State Government were verified from the relevant records and the State Government thereafter recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighter pension. The Union of India has rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground, firstly, that the application for grant of freedom fighter pension has been filed by the petitioner beyond time prescribed under the Scheme and, secondly, that the case of the petitioner has not been recommended either by the Slate Government or by the Advisory Committee. On these two grounds, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent Union of India by order, dated 19.3.96, a copy of which is mace Annexure 6 to this application. As stated above, the petitioner applied for grant of freedom fighter pension in the year, 1990 along with the relevant documents, as it appears from the letter, dated 8.6.94, a copy of which is Annexure 2 to this writ application. The documents so filed before the State Government had been verified and thereafter the case of the petitioner was recommended to the Union of India. The documents so filed before the State Government had been verified and thereafter the case of the petitioner was recommended to the Union of India. Surprisingly enough, the Union of India has rejected the case of the petitioner on the grounds that the application filed by the petitioner for grant of freedom fighter pension was time-barred as also the case of the petitioner had not been recommended by the State Government, which appears to be an error of record. Even if assuming for a moment that the application filed by the petitioner for grant of freedom fighter pension was filed beyond the time prescribed by the Union of India under the aforesaid Scheme, the petitioner was otherwise entitled to the relief sought for, the same cannot be refused on the mere technicality like limitation. In such circumstances, the High Court can interfere even after expiry of the period of limitation, as has been held by the apex Court in the case of Sri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. & anr Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in 1984 BBCJ 82 (SC). The Under-Secretary to the Union of India, in the Department of Home, bas rejected the prayer of the petitioner also on the assumption that the case of the petitioner has not been recommended by the State Government, which is an error of record on the face of it. Accordingly, the order, dated 19.3.96, a copy of which is made Annexure-6 to this application is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Union of India, Ministry of Home, Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi, to dispose of the same by a speaking order in the light of the recommendation made by the State Government as well au in the light of the observations made hereinabove, as soon as possible, preferably, within three months from the receipt/production of copy of this order and the decision taken by the respondent authority must be communicated to the petitioner forthwith, This writ application is accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.