JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C.J. (Oral) :- This petition is filed by the petitioner for a appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondent No. 1 to issue sanction for the grant of pension under Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme with effect from August 27. 1982 i.e. the date of submission of his application and may be directed to pay arrears along with interest forthwith. Other reliefs also have been prayed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was a freedom fighter. He applied for benefit under Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme to Government of India on August 27. 1982. On completion of formalities and enquiry by the State Government, recommendation was made by the State Government to the Union Government on December 31. 1986 to grant pension. Surprisingly, however, on May 5. 1988. the application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that it was barred by time. The petitioner was. therefore, constrained to approach this court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 237 of 1999. The petition came up for hearing before the Division Bench and by a judgment and order dated November 16. 1999. the petition came to be allowed. In the relevant part, it was observed by the Division Bench as under: "From the materials placed on record by the petitioner. prima facie, we are of the view that the petitioners case is fully covered under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. 1972. which was later on called as Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. 1980 and more specifically the statement made in paragraph 3 of the rejoinder, the information sought for by the Union of India, has been specifically given by the petitioner. Therefore, we direct the respondent-Union of India to reconsider the case of the petitioner wiithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and if the petitioner is found eligible based upon the documents already attached with the writ petition and the statement made in the rejoinder, he shall be granted Freedom Fighters Pension in accordance with law and further information, if any. has to be gathered by the Union of India from Pakistan, the same can be gathered, but the case of the petitioner for the grant of Freedom Fighters Pension shall not be lingered on for the said purpose, which may take sufficiently long time to the Union of India to obtain the information, verification of the documents and other statements made by the petitioner in the writ petition and the rejoinder. This writ petition shall be treated as representation by the Union of India on behalf of the petitioner without calling upon the petitioner to supply any other information, as the petitioner is not having any more information with him. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms and directions." 3. Then again, the case was considered by the first respondent on May 26. 2000 and an order dated May 26. 2000 and an order dated May 26. 2000 (Annexure PF) was passed. In the order, it was stated that the President was pleased to sanction grant of provisional pension of Rs. 3000/- per month plus dearness relief as admissible under the Rules to the petitioner with effect from March 28. 2000. The said communication is by Under Secretary to the Government of India to the Pay and Accounts Officer (Pension and Misc.). Ministry of Home Affairs. New Delhi. The copies were forwarded by the Ministry for information and necessary action. One of the copies was sent to the petitioner at Sr.No. 2 and the endorsement to the petitioner reads: "Shri Manphool Singh S/o Shri Iqbal Singh. R/o Village Malpur. P.O. Panjehra. Tehsil Nalagarh. District Solan (H.P.). Your status as a freedom fighter has been recognised by giving benefit of doubt. Pension has. therefore, been sanctioned prospectively. This is supported by the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in CA No. 7762/96 case titled Union of- India r. MR. Chelliah Thevar." (emphasis supplied) 4. The petitioner has approached this Court as he has a grievance for grant of pensionary benefits with effect from March 28. 2000. 5. Notice were issued to the respondents as to admission as well as final hearing. Affidavits in-reply as well as rejoinder have been filed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent has committed an error in not granting the application of the petitioner from the year 1982. Notice were issued to the respondents as to admission as well as final hearing. Affidavits in-reply as well as rejoinder have been filed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent has committed an error in not granting the application of the petitioner from the year 1982. It was submitted that since the petitioner made application on August 27. 1982 and when his case was recommended by the State Government, it was obligator) on the Central Government to grant him pension from that date. Since it was not done, the action deserved to be interfered with. It was further submitted that when the petitioner approached this Court and the petition was allowed, inter alia, observing that the case of the petitioner was fully covered under the Scheme of 1972. which was latter called Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. 1.980. he ought to have been scanted all the benefits. 7. In the reply filed by respondent No.I. it was stated that necessary documents, which were to be supplied by the petitioner, were not supplied. On the basis of the policy decision dated September 9. 1989. copies of which have been annexed along with the affidavit-in-reply as Arinexure R-l. it was stated that the case of the petitioner was covered by clause (v) of the said policy. Clause (v) reads as under: "Circumstances, Date for sanction of pension. (i) to(iv)..................... (v) If in any case the eligibility criteria of any standard of proof is being relaxed ... Prospective!}.." 8. It was stated in para 11 of the.counter that the case was considered by the first respondent on the basis of the said clause. Reliance in this connection was also placed on some of the decisions of the Supreme Court. 9. In our opinion, it cannot be said that by considering the policy decision and applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ganesh Chandra Dolai & Ors.. AIR 1997 SC 289 any illegality can be sad to have been committed by the respondents. 10. Our attention was. however, invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to a recent decision in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India & Ors.. 2001 (8) SCC 88. v. Ganesh Chandra Dolai & Ors.. AIR 1997 SC 289 any illegality can be sad to have been committed by the respondents. 10. Our attention was. however, invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to a recent decision in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India & Ors.. 2001 (8) SCC 88. In that case, the observation was that hyper technical view should not be adopted in such cases, particularly, when the benefits were to be extended to the persons, who had struggled for independence. In that case, the pension was granted with effect from March. 1996. when the petitioner had approached the Court. 11. In the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if we allow the petition partly. Since the petitioner has approached this Court by filing first petition on November 16. 1999 i.e. C.W.P. No.231 of 1999 and the matter was remanded, in our opinion, petitioner would be entitled to pension with effect from that date and not from March 28. 2000. which has been decided by the impugned Annexure dated May 26. 2000. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the petition deserves to be partly allowed. It is directed that respondent No.l will pay pension to the petitioner with effect from November 16. 1999. Petition accordingly stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above. 13. The above portion of the judgment was dictated in open Court on December 6. 2001. The time of the Court was- over. At that stage, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that so far as the State Government (respondent No.2) is concerned, the petitioner may be granted pension as per his prayer clause (ii). The sad prayer clause reads thus: "That the respondent No.2 may be directed to sanction and make the payment of financial assistance to the petitioner under the financial assistance scheme framed by the State Govt. for freedom fighters." 14. Learned Advocate General instructed by Mr. Chauhan. learned Deputy Advocate General drew our attention to the fact that the first application was submitted by the petitioner for such pension only on January 10. 2001. It was not in prescribed proforma as well as through proper channel. Hence, by a communication dated January 17. 2001. the petitioner was asked to send such application on prescribed proforma and through proper channel. Accordingly, a regular application was made by the petitioner on February 1. 2001. It was not in prescribed proforma as well as through proper channel. Hence, by a communication dated January 17. 2001. the petitioner was asked to send such application on prescribed proforma and through proper channel. Accordingly, a regular application was made by the petitioner on February 1. 2001. It was stated that the said application was received by the Deputy Commissioner. Solan, on February 6. 2001. A direct application sent by the petitioner was received by the Government on April 30. 2001 and a decision was taken on May 17. 2001 by which the person was sanctioned with effect from February 5. 2001. that is. a day earlier than the application in regular proforma and through proper channel, which was received in the office of Deputy Commissioner. Solan on February 6.2001. 15. In these circumstances, in our opinion, it cannot be sad that by taking the decision granting pension with effect from February 5. 2001 (a day earlier from receipt of regular application by respondent No.2). any illegality can be said to have been committed. Hence, relief prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted. 16. The writ petition is partly allowed to the above extent. Order accordingly. No costs. -