JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Petitioner is the wife of late Shri Sobha Ram. She is a resident of Village Katoh, Post Office Samella, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Present writ petition has been filed by her seeking directions against respondent No. 1 to allow Freedom Fighter Pension to her under the schemes of 1972 and 1980 framed by the Union of India; and also for a direction to respondent No. 2 to provide Financial Assistance available to freedom fighters of Himachal Pradesh in terms of the scheme framed by it. 2. According to petitioner, her late husband Shri Sobha Ram was a freedom fighter who had remained underground during the freedom struggle movement. With a view to support her case, she has placed on record copies of certificates issued by other 2 freedom fighters, namely Shri Munshi Ram, son of Shri Hari Singh, resident of village Alsogi, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and Sunder Singh, son of Shri Govind Ram, Village Kotoh, P.O. Samella, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. They have issued Annextires P-l and P-2 respectively. Petitioners husband had remained in jail. This fact is also corroborated from Annexure P-3, extract from the jail register. Per certificate Annexure-2, Sunder Singh and Sobha Ram participated in the freedom struggle movement. 3. Alongwith rejoinder petitioner has appended affidavit of Shri Narottam Dutt Shastri, Ex. M.L.A. and a freedom fighter of Bilaspur. This is Annexure P-14. It reads as under :— "Affidavit Stamp Value Rs. 5. Affidavit of Shri Narottam Dutt Shastri son of Shri Dihru Ram, aged 82 years, R/o New Bilaspur Town, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. I Narottam Dutt Shastri make an oath and State:— 1. That I knew Shri Shobha Ram, son of Shri Nihala, village Katoh personally who was a freedom fighter during independence struggle alongwith me. 2. That Sri Shobha Ram took an active part in the freedom struggle and was forced to go underground because of various atrocities at the hands of State Ruler. 3. That on my definite information he remained underground for more than 7 months during 1946-47.1 further affirm solemnly that paras 1 to 3 of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein. Place : Ghumarwin Deponent. Dated : 16.3.2001 Sd/- Narottam Dutt Shastri. Ex. M.L.A., Freedom Fighter, Ex. 3. That on my definite information he remained underground for more than 7 months during 1946-47.1 further affirm solemnly that paras 1 to 3 of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein. Place : Ghumarwin Deponent. Dated : 16.3.2001 Sd/- Narottam Dutt Shastri. Ex. M.L.A., Freedom Fighter, Ex. Vice President of Bilaspur State Praja Mandal, P.P.O. No. 2039." 4. In these circumstances, on the basis of Annexures P-l to P-3, petitioner claims that her late husband was a freedom fighter and is covered under the Schemes of State and Central Government, as he was involved in Praja Mandal Movement for the merger of Suket State. He also actively participated in this movement to accomplish the objectic merger of Suket State, prior to the year 1948, and in that connection, he also remained underground. Further according to her, this fact is supported by the certifcates, Annexures P-l and P-2 as well as the jail register Annexure P-3. Petitioner further claims that she wrote to the President of India, but without any consequence. Documents attached with the writ petition indicate that petitioner was representing to the Governor of the State, as well as to the other functionaries of the State to allow the financial assistance. It has further been revealed from such documents that her case was got inquired into through the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. Fact remains that petitioner got no relief. 5. When put to notice, stand of the Union of India is that as per scheme, she is not entitled for the grant of pension. Annexure R-4 is the communication dated 31.7.1995 sent by the Government of India, intimating that the suffering of her husband in connection with freedom struggle as claimed by her, falls short of six months which is the required minimum period under the scheme. As such, she is not eligible for the grant of family pension under the aforesaid scheme. Thus, respondent No. 1 justified the rejection of her claim. 6. Stand of respondent No. 2, is that when matter was got inquired into from the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi and after getting verification report, her case as forwarded to respondent No. 1 to consider the same on the basis of this report. Fact remains that no benefit has been given to her either by the State Government or by the Central Government. Fact remains that no benefit has been given to her either by the State Government or by the Central Government. Reliance is placed on the above extracted affidavit of Shri Narottam Dutt Shastri on behalf of the petitioner. On the basis of this affidavit, i.e. Annexure P-14 also, claim for the grant of financial assistance is additionally made by the petitioner. 7. Record of this case shows that when the matter was taken up for hearing on 4.12.2002, following order was passed:— "When this case was taken up for hearing today, Shri Baldev Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, stated that though in the main writ petition, stand of the petitioner was that he had been underground for 4, 1/2 months whereas his period of imprisonment was less. However, alongwith the rejoinder filed to the reply of respondent No. 1, Annexure P-14, affidavit of Sh. Narottam Dutt Shastri, has been attached. In this affidavit, is mentioned that petitioner had remained underground for more than 7 months during 1946-47. Shri Baldev Singh submits that it is necessary to file supplementary affidavit to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. He prays for and is allowed two weeks time for filing supplementary affidavit and case is ordered to be listed in the week commencing from 30th December, 2002 for hearing. At this stage, Sh. Kuthiala submitted that respondent No. 2 may also be directed to re-examine and re-consider the case of his client for grant of pension available to a freedom fighter from the State Government. Let respondent No. 2 also look into the matter and place before the Court decision taken in the light of the materials which are there on the file of this writ petition." 8. In addition to this, respondent No. 2 took up the matter with the Department concerned. And vide decision dated 21.8.2003, her claim was rejected. Similarly, respondent No. 1 in its supplementary affidavit, dated 21.1.2003 reiterated its earlier stand of rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Here brief reference to this supplementary affidavit needs to be made. Respondent No. 1 has not accepted certificates Annexures P-1 and P-2. Reason given is that these both were neither in the proforma prescribed for the purpose, nor the certificates give the details of sufferings of the two freedom fighters who issued those. They had also not given their Pension Payment Order Nos. Respondent No. 1 has not accepted certificates Annexures P-1 and P-2. Reason given is that these both were neither in the proforma prescribed for the purpose, nor the certificates give the details of sufferings of the two freedom fighters who issued those. They had also not given their Pension Payment Order Nos. Thus, according to respondent No. 1, it is not known whether they are getting freedom fighters pension or not. Such certificates could only be issued by those who had undergone two years jail to their credit and were also receiving Savtantrata Samman Sainik Pension. In terms of the order dated 4.12.2002 regarding Annexure P-14, it is further stated that he (Narottam Dutt Shastri) belongs to Bilaspur District, whereas petitioner is from Mandi District. As such, the certifier, i.e. Narottam Dutt Shastri was not competent to have issued such a certificate in case of an individual residing in another District. Another reason given for not accepting this affidavit is, that it is not in the prescribed proforma. Certifier has not given his jail sufferings as per the scheme laid. Similarly vide application dated 18.8.1994 petitioner had claimed sufferings of her husband for four and half months, whereas affidavit, Annexure P-14 now certifies those to be seven months. Thus, the latter certificate according to respondent No. 1 renders her claim doubtful. Both earlier certificates, i.e. Annexures P-l and P-2 as well as P-14 have been said to be contradictory. This also resulted in rejection of the claim of petitioner. 9. Decision taken by the State Government on 21.8.2003 also justifies rejection of her claim because of contradiction having arisen, as noted in the preceding Paras. Besides this, there is no positive proof of jail warrant or other order regarding it from the official records. Per this respondent, her claim had been turned down as far back as in 1997. In these circumstances, in the absence of there being any proof, there was no justification for her husband to have gone underground. 10. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Kuthiala, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that action of both the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to him, husband of her client had gone underground not in the mainland, but in the erstwhile princely State of Suket. 10. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Kuthiala, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that action of both the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to him, husband of her client had gone underground not in the mainland, but in the erstwhile princely State of Suket. Thus, according to him, both under Savtantrata Samman Sainik Schemes of 1972 and 1980 framed by respondent No. 1, husband of the petitioner was entitled to its benefit being a freedom fighter. With a view to advance this plea, he placed reliance on some of the observations of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Tej Singh Nidharak v. Union of India and another, ILR 1984 H.P. 593. 11. In this case, it was held that pre-condition of six months imprisonment in jail term having been undergone was in respect of mainland jail as per Clause (a) of the Scheme and it relates to the period before the independence. This clause was held not attracted (in the case of petitioner in that case), because he had not suffered imprisonment in the mainland jail but in a jail in the erstwhile native State. Mr. Kuthiala also placed reliance on number of other decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court of India and finally prayed for allowing this writ petition and then issuing directions to both the respondents to grant Svantantrata Sainik Samman Pension as per scheme framed by respondent No. 1 and financial assistance under the Financial Assistance Scheme prepared by respondent No. 2, as a widow of late a freedom fighter, Sobha Ram. 12. Shri Baldev Singh, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel as well as learned Advocate General both submitted that so far their respective clients are concerned, they have allowed admissible relief to freedom fighters/their family members, where-ever such cases are covered under the schemes franfed by the Central/State Governments. By referring to pleadings of the respondents and also the documents filed, they submitted that since the husband of the petitioner had not gone underground for a period of six months as envisaged under law, as such, no exception can be taken to the decision of the respondents in rejecting their claim. 13. By referring to pleadings of the respondents and also the documents filed, they submitted that since the husband of the petitioner had not gone underground for a period of six months as envisaged under law, as such, no exception can be taken to the decision of the respondents in rejecting their claim. 13. When specifically questioned regarding requirement of issuance of certificate by a freedom fighter resident of one District qua freedom fighter of another District, as in the present case, and/or about there being any prohibition in law either under the scheme or otherwise, Shri Baldev Singh was unable to satisfy this Court how the stand of his client that Annexure P-14 given by Shri Narottam Dutt Shastri be not accepted. Mr. Shastri has given his Pension Payment Order so far grant of pension to him by respondent No. 1 is concerned. To plead that he has not given other particulars regarding his having undergone imprisonment etc. by respondent No. 1 is not only too technical an approach, but is thoroughly pedantic also. It could be ascertained by respondent No. 1 after having peeped into the record from the file of Shri Natoram Dutt Shastri. Instead of doing so they have shifted the burden to the petitioner without realising her age, as also ignoring the fact that she is a rustic, illiterate villager. Her claim is on the basis of the record whatsoever she could produce. In case there was any discrepancy, petitioner ought to have been called upon to remove it. Instead of doing so, both the respondents have adopted by her typical approach in turning down her claim. 14. I may hasten to add in this context that by making this observation, Court is not holding that both the respondents must grant relief to the petitioner whether she is eligible or not. However, they have to ensure that in case some information was lacking or otherwise, they ought to have asked the petitioner to do the needful or to have looked into the relevant records in their respective possession. Reason being that it is not the case of either of them that either the certifiers of Anriexures P-l and P-2, or the deponent of Annexure P-14 are not freedom fighters. Reason being that it is not the case of either of them that either the certifiers of Anriexures P-l and P-2, or the deponent of Annexure P-14 are not freedom fighters. Leaving the matter here only and without saying anything further, it is felt that interest of justice will be well served if this writ petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions:— (a) That the petitioner will file a representation to both the respondents by or before 31.10.2003 separately. She will submit her claim by filing certificates from the concerned freedom fighters in proper format as required under law giving pension payment order numbers etc. and other details regarding their getting pension, whether from the Central or the State Governments; (b) That both respondents shall look into the matter afresh, (c) On receipt of such representation, both the respondents will examine her case afresh and then dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order by or before 31.12.2003. Reason for making the process time bound is only one, i.e. the old age and ailing health of the petitioner, as is revealed from the application in this writ filed alongwith documents. It is clarified that while examining the case of the petitioner both the respondents will ensure that they are not in any manner influenced by the earlier decisions taken by them while rejecting her claim for grant of pension in question; (d) In case the decision of both or either of the respondents goes against the petitioner, she will be free to approach the Court, if so advised, as per law; and (e) Costs on the parties.