ORDER 1. Rule nisi. 2. Heard the petitioner, who initially appeared in person and this Court requested Mr R.S. Randhawa, Advocate to appear on his behalf and the learned Additional Solicitor General appeared for the Union of India. We heard both sides. 3. The petitioner was granted freedom fighters pension by the State of Punjab in 1997 and the petitioner had sought for the Central Government pension and in the year 1989 the State Government recommended his case for pension by the Union Government under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. However, the Central Government rejected the claim of the petitioner. Thereafter in 1997 the State Government again recommended for grant of the Central Government pension for the freedom fighters. But the Central Government did not accept the plea of the petitioner. It appears that there were some allegations regarding the genuineness of the certificates produced along with the application of freedom fighters pension and a State Committee was appointed by the Central Government to look into those allegations. It seems that the "Punjab Committee" did not recommend the name of the petitioner and therefore, no pension of the Central Government was granted to the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the petitioner brings to our notice the case of two other persons, namely, Sewa Singh S/o Pala Singh and Dhara Singh S/o Makhan Singh wherein the Punjab Committee had not recommended their names for pension. Despite non-recommendation by the Punjab Committee the Government of India vide its orders dated 20-9-1998 and 20-10-1998 respectively, granted pension to them. The petitioner submits that he was not 9 informed of the rejection of his case by the Punjab Committee and a communication was sent to him only on 26-3-2001 and he filed the present writ petition praying that pension may be granted. 5. Learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that this Court held in the case of W.B. Freedom Fighters Organisation v. Union of India1 that in cases where the Punjab Committee had rejected the claim, the Central. Government would be justified in not granting the same. However, in the present case it seems that after the decision of the Punjab Committee the petitioner did not get opportunity to make an application to the Central Government for seeking review of the decision of the Punjab Committee, as has been done in the other two cases. 6. Government would be justified in not granting the same. However, in the present case it seems that after the decision of the Punjab Committee the petitioner did not get opportunity to make an application to the Central Government for seeking review of the decision of the Punjab Committee, as has been done in the other two cases. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the second respondent to examine the petitioners case with all relevant records and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner would be at liberty to present the relevant documents before the second respondent within a period of three weeks and on receipt of such documents the appropriate authority shall take a decision within a period of three months thereafter. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.