Judgment 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 23-4-2001 (P-6) withdrawing the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. The order of recovery in respect of the payment already made to him has also been challenged. A further prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the respondents to re-commence payment of pension in terms of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (P-1). Facts : In the Silver Jubilee year of independence in 1972, a Central Scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and their eligible dependents was introduced by respondent No. 1. The aforementioned scheme was further liberalized and renamed as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for brevity, the scheme ), which was made effective on 1-8-1980. According to the scheme, a person who had suffered minimum imprisonment of six months on account of participation in freedom struggle was entitled to the grant of pension. However, such a person was required to furnish the evidence as per Clause 2.2 (a) or (b) of the scheme. As clause 2.2 (b) of the scheme is relevant for the instant petition, the same is extracted below for facility of reference :- "2.2 Imprisonment :- A person who had suffered minimum imprisonment of six months (3 months in case of women, SC/ST freedom fighters) on account of participation in freedom struggle subject to furnishing of the following evidences :- xxxxxxxxxxxx (b) In case records of the relevant period are not available, a non-availability of records certificate (NARC) from the concerned State/Union Territory Administration along with 2 Co-prisoner certificates (CPC) from freedom fighters who have proven jail suffering of minimum 1 year and who were with the applicant in the jail. In case the certifier happens to be sitting or Ex. M.P./M.L.A. only one certificate in place of the two is required." 2. The petitioner is claimed to have joined and participated in Quit India Movement in the year 1942 on the call given by the Father of the Nation Shri Mahatma Gandhi. It is claimed that he was sentenced to one-year imprisonment from 20-10-1942 to 20-10-1943. He was kept at Central Jail at Lahore. In the year 1992, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No. 1 (Union of India) through respondent No. 2 (Government of Punjab) for grant of pension under the scheme . It is claimed that he was sentenced to one-year imprisonment from 20-10-1942 to 20-10-1943. He was kept at Central Jail at Lahore. In the year 1992, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No. 1 (Union of India) through respondent No. 2 (Government of Punjab) for grant of pension under the scheme . He disclosed that he suffered imprisonment from 20-10-1942 to 20-10-1943 in Central Jail, Lahore on account of his participation in Quit India Movement. In support of his claim, he has submitted his own affidavit and affidavits of co-prisoners Sarv Shri Tara Singh and Bachan Singh, who had already been granted pension under the scheme. However, in the application submitted to respondent No. 1, the period of imprisonment recorded was 20-10-1942 to 15-8-1943. He also submitted his own affidavit apart from the affidavit of two co-prisoners namely Sarv Shri Gopal Sing Quami and Bachan Singh, who had already been granted pension under the scheme. Respondent No. 2 recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of pension on 8-5-1998. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 after verifying the claim of the petitioner sanctioned his pension with effect from 13-1-1999, as is evident from perusal of order dated 11-2-1999 (P-3). 3. However, respondent No. 1 entertained some doubt with regard to the authenticity of the claim made by the petitioner on account of the fact that in the applications sent to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, different periods of imprisonment have been mentioned. In the application sent to respondent No. 1, the period mentioned was 20-10-1942 to 20-10-1943, whereas in the application sent to respondent No. 2, the period mentioned was 20-10-1942 to 15-8-1943. Another discrepancy which led to the issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner was that in the application sent to respondent No. 1, affidavits of co-prisoners Sarv Shri Gopal Singh Quami and Bachan Singh were given and whereas in the application sent to respondent No. 2, affidavits of co-prisoners Sarv Shri Tara Sigh and Bachan Singh were given. On the aforementioned basis the petitioner was issued a notice on 18-12-2000 (P-4) granting him an opportunity to show cause as to why the pension already granted to him should not be cancelled. 4. The petitioner filed reply taking the stand that he was about 80 years of age and his memory was fading. On the aforementioned basis the petitioner was issued a notice on 18-12-2000 (P-4) granting him an opportunity to show cause as to why the pension already granted to him should not be cancelled. 4. The petitioner filed reply taking the stand that he was about 80 years of age and his memory was fading. He had explained that Serv Shri Bachan Singh and Tara Singh had remained imprisoned with him and the period from 20-10-1942 to 20-10-1943 was correctly given. He has further pointed out that the mistake had occurred on account of the fact that Shri Gopal Singh Quami had remained in jail from 20-10-1942 to 15-8-1943, which led to the disclosure of wrong period. It was also asserted that the petitioner, co-prisoners and the witnesses were illiterate persons, which has contributed to the commission of error. 5. Respondent No. 1 rejected the reply of the petitioner by adopting the rationale that once the petitioner had accepted different dates of suffering imprisonment and different names of co-prisoners and that he has attributed those discrepancies to his illiteracy, then there is admission on his part, which would constitute a valid ground for cancellation of his pension. Accordingly on 23-4-2001, an order cancelling the pension has been passed and the same reads as under :- "I am directed to refer to this Ministry s show cause notice dated 18-12-2000 on the above subject calling upon you to show cause as to why for the reasons stated therein the pension should not be cancelled from day it was sanctioned and recoveries effected and to say that in reply thereto you have submitted a letter dated 13-1-2001. In this letter you have submitted a letter dated 13-1-2001. (sic) In this letter you have accepted the changed dates of suffering and names of certifiers, and attributed them to your illiteracy. Therefore, you have accepted contradictory claims and certification in support thereof. Thus there is reasonable cause to deviate from the provisional, decision already arrived at. Accordingly it has been ordered that :- a) the pension sanctioned to you should be cancelled from the day it was sanctioned, and b) the recoveries should be effected of the payment already made to you as pension as revenue realization. 2. You are also requested to deposit the PPO with the Punjab and Sind Bank, Rajpura Main Branch, Patiala, Punjab. 2. You are also requested to deposit the PPO with the Punjab and Sind Bank, Rajpura Main Branch, Patiala, Punjab. Similarly the free Railway Pass should be Deposited with the concerned issuing office and an intimation should be given to this Ministry." 6. The stand taken by respondent No. 1 in the written statement is that an applicant was required to submit a Jail Certificate showing his period of imprisonment and in case the Jail Certificate was not available he was to produce Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC) plus Co-prisoners Certificates from two prominent freedom fighters, who should have undergone imprisonment at least for one year. It has further been pointed out that the petitioner sent his initial application on 6-4-1990 claiming that he remained imprisoned from 1942 to 1943 in the Central Jail, Lahore, for having participated in Quit India Movement. The aforementioned application was rejected on 4-1-1993 as there was no evidence in support of the claim made by the petitioner (R-1). Another application dated 20-9-1992 was again filed indicating his actual period of imprisonment in the Central Jail, Lahore, being 20-10-1942 to 15-8-1943, which was supported by an affidavit (R-2). His claim was also supported by certificate given by co-prisoners Sarv Shri Gopal Singh quami and Bachan Singh. Both these co-prisoners certified that the petitioner was with them in the Central Jail, Lahore, from 20-10-1942 to 15-8-1943. Then a mention has been made with regard to the contradictory information given in the application submitted to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 giving the certificate of different co-prisoners. 7. Ms. Anju Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is an old freedom fighter and cannot be expected to possess elephantine memory. She has further pointed out that the petitioner is illiterate like his co-prisoners Sarv Shri Tara Singh, Bachan Singh and Gopal Singh Quami. According to the learned counsel, two co-prisoners have certified his period of imprisonment from 20-10-1942 to 20-10-1943. Both the aforementioned co-prisoners namely Sarv Shri Bachan Singh and Tara Singh have themselves undergone more than one year of imprisonment. She has emphasised that some confusion was caused when the certificate by co-prisoner Shri Gopal Singh Quami was issued because his own period of imprisonment was from 20-10-1942 to 15-8-1943. Both the aforementioned co-prisoners namely Sarv Shri Bachan Singh and Tara Singh have themselves undergone more than one year of imprisonment. She has emphasised that some confusion was caused when the certificate by co-prisoner Shri Gopal Singh Quami was issued because his own period of imprisonment was from 20-10-1942 to 15-8-1943. Learned counsel has submitted that in such like cases, the standard of proof should not be the same as is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of parties. She has pointed out that the object of the scheme to honour, and to mitigate the sufferings of, the freedom fighters, has to be kept in view. Learned counsel has stressed the need for a liberal and a non-technical approach. For the aforementioned purpose, she has placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh V/s. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 8 : (AIR 2001 SC 3883). Learned counsel has then argued that the matter is squarely covered by a judgement of this Court in the case of Avtar Singh V/s. Union of India, Civil Writ Petition No. 4970 of 2001, decided on 17-11-2004 (Reported in 2005 (1) Pun LR 770), asserting that the matter is squarely covered and deserves to be allowed in the same terms. 8. Mr. Ashish Pawal and Mr. Rajesh Verma, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have argued that it is the function of the Government to scrutinise the documents and to decide about sufficiency of proof and, therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to grant pension by accepting the evidence, which has been rejected by them. In support of above submission, learned counsel have placed reliance on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V/s. R. V. Swamy, 1997 (4) JT (SC) 579 : (AIR 1997 SC 2069). 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed. It is not disputed that the petitioner and his co-prisoners are illiterate and old persons. The petitioner himself is more than 80 years of age. He is not expected to possess the memory of an event of more than 50 years ago nor can he preserve such an old record. It is not disputed that the petitioner and his co-prisoners are illiterate and old persons. The petitioner himself is more than 80 years of age. He is not expected to possess the memory of an event of more than 50 years ago nor can he preserve such an old record. But it is suffice to mention that the petitioner had in both the applications shown his period of imprisonment, which is more than six months. In the first application, the period mentioned is 20-10-1942 to 20-10-1943, whereas in the later application the period mentioned is 20-10-1942 to 15-8-1943. In other words, the petitioner fulfils the requirement of the pension scheme (P-1), which required minimum imprisonment of six months. It appears that the discrepancy has crept in on account of the incorrect period mentioned by Shri Gopal Singh quami. The petitioner could not be blamed for furnishing of incorrect certificate by him or on account of the fact that Shri Gopal Singh Quami has been blacklisted for issuing Co-prisoner Certificates indiscriminately to a large number of persons. The certificates issued by other co-prisoners Sarv Shri Tara Singh and Bachan Singh cannot be ignored. 10. The reliance of the petitioner on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh s case (supra) is also meritorious because the object of the scheme to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of freedom fighters has to be kept in view and accordingly a liberal and non-technical approach has to prefer. In Gurdial Singh s case, the Supreme Court was considering the freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 and in that regard the observation has been made in para 7 of the judgement, which reads as under :- "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. 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 the Scheme had 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. The case of the claimants under this Scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touchstone 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 contry 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." 11. Similar view has been taken by Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari V/s. nion of India, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 : (AIR 1933 SC 2127). It is further appropriate to mention that this Court in Avtar Singh s case (supra) has taken the same view and the facts of that case are similar to the one in hand. 12. The reliance of the respondents on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of R. V. Swamy (supra) is totally misplaced because there evidence against the claim of pension had come on record showing that no warrant of arrest was issued against him and there was no other acceptable documentary evidence available in proof of undergoing suffering by the claimant for more than six months. There were a number of other factors as is evident from a perusal of para 9 of the reply. Therefore, I do not feel persuaded to accept that argument. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 23-4-2001 (P-6) is quashed. There were a number of other factors as is evident from a perusal of para 9 of the reply. Therefore, I do not feel persuaded to accept that argument. 13. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 23-4-2001 (P-6) is quashed. Consequently a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to restore the petitioner his pension as was granted by order dated 11-2-1999 (P-3). The pension shall be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. It is further directed that all the arrears be calculated and the same may also be paid within a period of four months from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the arrears at the rate of six per cent from the date the arrears were payable till the date of payment.