Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Central Govt. (Annexure A-27) passed in April, 99. ( 2. ) PETITIONER was initially allowed Samman Nidhi as per order dated 8-4-78. Petitioner alleges that he devoted himself in the freedom movement in the year 1941 in the erstwhile State of Orchha. He participated in the various movements. Petitioner was appointed as Head Master in Jyora which was part of the erstwhile State of Orchha. On account of involvement in the freedom movement the petitioner was arrested by the State Police of Prathivipur on 30-12-46. Petitioner had remained underground from 1-1-1941 to 19-7-42. The petitioner headed the Satyagraha at Charkari. The petitioner was removed from the service as per order dated 28-4-47 by the then Distt. Education Officer, Tikamgarh (Annexure A-l ). ( 3. ) A scheme was formulated by the Govt. for grant of pension to the freedom fighters in the year 1972. The petitioner applied for grant of Samman Nidhi. His application was allowed and pension was granted on 28-1-75 by Govt. of India. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner why grant of pension be not recalled. Petitioner was asked to file certain documents relating to removal. Petitioner submitted that he filed the documents Annexures A-4 and A-5 issued by the Distt. Education Officer, Tikamgarh and Collector Tikamgarh in which fact was mentioned that due to the political activities he was removed from the service. Order of Samman Nidhi was recalled. Petitioner represented the matter to the Central Govt. Ultimately the order has been passed in April, 99 (Annexure A-27 ). The Central Govt. reconsidered the matter and found that claim of the petitioner was based on loss of the job when he participated in the freedom. Since the petitioner could not produce the order relating to his dismissal which could clearly indicate that he was sacked because of his participation in the freedom struggle. Earlier the pension was sanctioned on the false statement that his annual income was below Rs. 5000/per annum. ( 4. ) IN the return filed by respondent No. 1 it is contended that petitioners application for pension was received on 15-8-72. He was sanctioned pension from 15-8-72 as per Govt. of Indias order dated 28-1-75. Petitioner failed to produce the copy of the dismissal order from the job. The State Govt. informed the said fact. The State Govt. ( 4. ) IN the return filed by respondent No. 1 it is contended that petitioners application for pension was received on 15-8-72. He was sanctioned pension from 15-8-72 as per Govt. of Indias order dated 28-1-75. Petitioner failed to produce the copy of the dismissal order from the job. The State Govt. informed the said fact. The State Govt. had also furnished a copy of the letter of Collector, Tikamgarh. Thereafter the petitioners pension was suspended and show-cause notice was issued. Petitioner again applied for Samman Nidhi. His claim was again rejected. He filed a writ petition - W. P. No. 72/96 in which it was directed to reconsider the matter. Since the petitioner failed to produce the documentary evidence his claim was rejected. ( 5. ) PETITIONER submits that documents Annexures A-1, A-4 and A-5 were filed which have not been taken into consideration and the order of rejection was passed. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no infirmity in the order and no interference is called for. ( 7. ) IN Gurudayal Singh V. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3883 , the Apex Court has held in paras 7 and 8 that hyper technical approach in such matter is bad in law. Paras 7 and 8 are quoted below:" 7. The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As the object of the scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by scheme have suffered for the country about half a century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the scheme. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the scheme. The case of the claimants under this scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touch-stone of the test of beyond reasonable doubt. Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence. ( 8. ) WE have noticed with disgust that the respondent authorities have adopted a hyper-technical approach while dealing with the case of a freedom fighter and ignored the basic principles/objectives of the scheme intended to give the benefit to the sufferers in the freedom movement. The contradictions and discrepancies, as noticed hereinabove, cannot be held to be material which could be made the basis of depriving the appellant of his right to get the pension. The case of the appellant has been disposed of by ignoring the mandate of law and the scheme. The impugned order also appears to have been passed with a biased and close mind completely ignoring the verdict of this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandaris case. We further feel that after granting the pension to the appellant, the respondents were not justified to reject his claim on the basis of material which already existed, justifying the grant of pension in his favour. The appellant has, unnecessarily, been dragged to litigation for no fault of his. The High Court has completely ignored its earlier judgments in C. W. P. No. 3790/94 entitled Mohan Singh V. Union of India, decided on 1-6-95 and C. W. P. No. 14442/95, decided on 11-12-95. " 8. Various documents have been placed on record by the petitioner which indicate that he was working as Head Master in Primary School, Jyora and was removed. Petitioners case is that he absented due to his participation in freedom struggle which is supported by Annexure P-4 certificate issued by Distt. Education Officer, Tikamgarh and Annexure P-5 issued by Collector. " 8. Various documents have been placed on record by the petitioner which indicate that he was working as Head Master in Primary School, Jyora and was removed. Petitioners case is that he absented due to his participation in freedom struggle which is supported by Annexure P-4 certificate issued by Distt. Education Officer, Tikamgarh and Annexure P-5 issued by Collector. There are also other documents on record which show that the petitioner was recognised as a freedom fighter by the various authorities. ( 9. ) NO reasons have been mentioned in the impugned order to discard the documents filed by the petitioner. It is apparent that case of the petitioner has not been dealt with properly. For recalling the order there should have been sufficient grounds. Reliance was also placed on R. Narayanan V. Union of India, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 581. ( 10. ) THE respondents are directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Gurudayal Singhs case (supra ). The petitioner may file a set of documents afresh for consideration of the case by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. ( 11. ) IN the result the writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-27 is quashed. The respondents are directed to re-examine the matter and pass appropriate order within 4 months from today. Cost on parties.