Judgment :- C.S. Rajan, J. The petitioner is a freedom fighter who is now in the late seventies. This Original Petition stems from a letter written by the petitioner which this Court accepted as an Original Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, even while he was a student he actively participated in the Freedom Struggle. He was arrested in 1938. After release from the jail he was not allowed to study in the erstwhile Travancore. He continued Ms educational Trichur and in Madras. For taking part in me "Freedom Stogie, in. the Quit India Movement of 1942, he was dismissed from the College. Thereafter he came back to his native State and continued his light against the foreign rule and the then Divan of Travancore. He was again arrested in 1947 and he was released from jail only after the independence. In 1972, he was awarded 'Thamrapathra' by the Government of India. He is also being given the Freedom Fighters Pension by the State Government. But he was not granted Freedom Fighters Pension from the Central Government. 2. The press reports which the petitioner enclosed along with his letter show that he is still active as a true Gandhi an in various movements against human rights violation and civil liberties. He is also a staunch supporter of prohibition. Thus, it can be seen that the petitioner is a beacon light in the present society which had already forgotten the ideals of Gandhiji. When innumerable persons (both deserved and undeserved) are getting Freedom Fighters Pension, if at all, there is any one who must really be given pension, I have no doubt that it is the petitioner. Perhaps he never clamored for getting pension from the Central Government because he never thought that active participation in the freedom movement was intended as a bargaining for a price. 3. The Supreme Court has occasion to consider the duties of the Government while granting Freedom Fighters Pension to deserving people. Some of the freedom fighters were not in need of financial assistance prior to the date of introduction of the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. Initially the pension was granted only to those whose annual income did not exceed Rs. 5,000/-. Much later the benefit was extended to all irrespective of their income. Some of the freedom fighters were not in need of financial assistance prior to the date of introduction of the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. Initially the pension was granted only to those whose annual income did not exceed Rs. 5,000/-. Much later the benefit was extended to all irrespective of their income. The object in making the said relaxation was not to reward or compensate the sacrifices made in the freedom struggle. The object was to honour where it was necessary, and also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the hour of its need. Perhaps, many of those refused to take the benefit of the scheme on the ground that they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with which they plunged in the freedom struggle. The laudable object of the scheme is to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made by these patriotic personalities. It cannot be considered as a compensation or a price for their patriotic role in the Independence Movement. In the ruling reported in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 2127) the Supreme Court also was of the view that the Government, if it is possible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fighters or their dependants and approach me with the pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same. According to the Supreme Court, such a course would be ideal and consistent with the true spirit of working out such schemes. Therefore, it is only in the fitness of things to direct the Central Government to grant pension to the petitioner with retrospective effect. In several cases, I had occasion to note that the bureaucracy dealing with these matters takes a very narrow and technical in view in order to reject such claims. In this case the Central Government should not take any such view or should not even wait for a recommendation from the State Government. Orders in this respect granting pension to the petitioner must be passed and amount disbursed to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Original Petition is disposed as above.