( 1 ) PETITIONER a lady, who is aged 72 years, was drawing family pension as per Rule 3 of the Karnataka State Freedom Fighters Welfare Rules, 1969, for about a year till 25-10-2000. This is a pension payable to a dependant family member of a freedom fighter, who was drawing such freedom fighters pension under the Karnataka State Freedom Fighters Welfare Rules, 1969. ( 2 ) UNDER the impugned order dated 25-10-2000, copy at Annexure-H, such family pension in favour of the petitioner has been discontinued with immediate effect and the petitioner being aggrieved by this, has approached this Court, invoking writ jurisdiction. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS husband late Mugatasab was a person who had been granted freedom fighters pension under the Rules from the year 1980 as per an order dated 27-8-1992. Petitioners husband had produced relevant documents in support of his claim for drawing freedom fighter pension at the time, when he had made his application on 13-12-1980. ( 4 ) THE said Mugatasab having died in the year 1998, the family pension as per Rule 3 had been continued in favour of the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE impugned order at Annexure-F recites that the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum District, had vide his letters dated 3-2-1999 and 28-12-1999 recommended to the Government to cancel the freedom fighter pension in favour of the said Mugatasab as he had found, on an enquiry, that the said Mugatasab had failed to produce original documents to substantiate his claim that he was a freedom fighter. The impugned order also recites that the Government taking note of such recommendation and to give effect to the same had issued a show-cause notice to the said Mugatasab, fixing the date for his personal appearance to be on 11-6-1999. It is also stated in the impugned order that the said notice was returned with the postal endorsement that the said Mugatasab had already died. It is stated that on learning that the petitioner was drawing the family pension under Rule 3 of the Rules, fresh notice was issued to the petitioner on 5-6-2000, calling upon her to produce the supporting documents to substantiate that her late husband was a freedom fighter, so that payment of family pension under Rule 3 of the Rules, can be continued in her favour. ( 6 ) THE impugned order also recites that the petitioner having failed to place any such material before the concerned authority, payment of family pension in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled forthwith. ( 7 ) IT is this order that is challenged before this Court, in this writ petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not one sustainable in law, that the respondents have failed to notice that the petitioner was drawing only family pension under Rule 3 and it was impossible for the petitioner to place material before the concerned persons to substantiate that her late husband was a freedom fighter and had suffered imprisonment about 60 years back; that such inability on the part of the petitioner should not have been held against her to deprive her of the family pension under Rule 3 in the evening of her life, when there is no one to support her and has no sustenance for her livelihood. It is submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and needs interference at the hands of this Court. ( 8 ) SRI. Puttasiddaiah, learned HCGP, has sought to support the impugned order. Learned HCGP has submitted that the enquiry for verification as to the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner s husband had been initiated, even during the lifetime of the petitioners husband and as the petitioners husband had died, it is only logical to pursue the same against the petitioner and the petitioner who has been given full opportunity to substantiate the claim and the petitioner having failed to do so, the order has come to be passed and the order is a proper and just order, which calls for no interference. ( 9 ) IT is not indicated either in the impugned order nor is it placed before the Court, as to under what circumstances, respondents entertained the doubt that the petitioners husband was not a genuine freedom fighter. Even at the time of sanctioning freedom fighters pension itself, the authorities look into the supporting documents and then only sanction freedom fighters pension. In the present case, the application of the petitioners husband had been made way back in the year 1980. The matter was pending before the Government for almost 12 years, before the order came to be passed in favour of the petitioners husband granting him pension. In the present case, the application of the petitioners husband had been made way back in the year 1980. The matter was pending before the Government for almost 12 years, before the order came to be passed in favour of the petitioners husband granting him pension. That the order remained in force during the lifetime of the petitioners husband. It has not been cancelled or varied. If such an order had remained in force, at the time of the death of the petitioners husband, automatically Rule 3 operates and petitioner is entitled for family pension as per Rule 3. It is the mere relationship that enables a person to draw family pension under Rule 3 of the Rules. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the widow of a person, who had been granted freedom fighters pension during his lifetime. ( 10 ) IN such circumstances, there is no justification in either calling upon the petitioner to substantiate the claim that her late husband was a freedom fighter, by placing relevant material nor that the pension can be cancelled on her failure to do so. The action on the part of the respondents is highly impractical, the requirement that they had imposed on the petitioner is almost impossible of compliance and the entire approach to the matter is most unreasonable. There is absolutely no scope or justification for passing the impugned order, canceling the family pension in favour of the petitioner. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, the impugned order at Annexure-F is quashed, by issue of a writ of certiorari. Respondents are directed to restore family pension if favour of the petitioner and to pay the arrears of pension that has been withheld pursuant to the impugned order, within three months from today. Respondents are also directed to maintain the payment of family pension in favour of the petitioner during her lifetime. This writ petition is allowed. Rule issued and made absolute. --- *** --- .