Judgment :- The writ petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Letter No. 19513/AO3/2000-7, dated 1.3.2001, and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to grant freedom fighter pension to the petitioner pursuant to the recommendation given by the District Collector in Na. Ka. ou 240511, dated 22.2.1999. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the Indian freedom struggle, there were several freedom fighters in and around Coimbatore District who had organised various kinds of protests and agitations against the then British Government as part of the national struggle for independence led by the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhiji. The petitioner having been inspired by the speeches of Gandhiji had participated in the several anti-British activities as part of the freedom struggle. 4. During the Quit India Movement in 1942, the petitioner along with several others had participated in the movement. Due to fear of arrest by the then British Government, the petitioner had remained underground for a considerable period. The petitioner had neither tendered an apology nor had he given a letter of regret to the then British Government for pardon. The petitioner had made an application for grant of pension as a freedom fighter pursuant to the notification of the Government. The applicants were also asked to produce the FIR copies, judgment copies and other documents to prove their participation in the freedom movement. 5. The petitioner had submitted that most of the genuine freedom fighters did not have the above mentioned records as they never expected that the records were to be obtained and maintained for the purpose of getting some benefits at a later stage. It is only after the Government had decided to honour the freedom fighters for their participation in the freedom movement, several freedom fighters were making efforts to get various records/certificates to substantiate their claim regarding their participation in the freedom movement. It is a fact that most of the official records, even if available at that time, had been destroyed after expiry of the prescribed period for maintaining those records. It is a fact that most of the official records, even if available at that time, had been destroyed after expiry of the prescribed period for maintaining those records. The petitioner also had made/an application on 1.11.1983 to the Jail authority and he was replied vide letter, dated 25.11.1983, stating that the records had already been destroyed. The petitioner had made an application to the State Government for sanctioning the freedom fighters' pension, dated 27.7.1981, through the District Collector. Subsequently, the petitioner had various responses from the State Government and since then the petitioner was making continuous effort to get the pension. The petitioner was informed that his applications will be considered/examined in the District Committee meeting on 29.8.1997. The petitioner had appeared on the date before the District Committee along with the available documents issued by Shri. Chinnaya Gounder, who is receiving freedom fighters pension from the Central Government vide No. 2229/101/72, dated 3.10.1973. The petitioner had also produced another certificate from the freedom fighter Shri. Marappa Gounder who is also getting Central Government Pension vide E.P.C.No. 3723 and Lok Sabha M.P. Shri. R. Prabhu had also given a certificate in this regard. However, these certificates issued to the freedom fighters who were also lodged in prisons during the relevant period and who had participated in the freedom struggle along with the petitioner, were not accepted by the Government, as these freedom fighters were not recognised or given in the list of 15 freedom fighters identified by the Government. 6. The petitioner had further submitted that the District Collector, vide Ltr.No. 22.2.1999, had returned the papers to the Deputy Secretary, (Political Pension-1) Department, stating that the petitioner had given the certificate from three freedom fighters who were in different Jails. The District Collector had also expressed in his letter stating that the Government had recognised only two freedom fighters who were in Coimbatore Jail and these two freedom fighters cannot be recognised for issuing of certificates. The petitioner had produced the certificates given- by other freedom fighters who were receiving pension from the Central Government as well as the State Government. The petitioner had produced the certificates given- by other freedom fighters who were receiving pension from the Central Government as well as the State Government. The Government's recognition of only two freedom fighters in Coimbatore District cannot be logical as the applicants for freedom fighters' pension might have suffered at different points of time and therefore getting the certificate from only the two freedom fighters recognised by the Government cannot be the basis for deciding the sanctioning of all freedom fighters' pension. 7. The petitioner had not been granted pension despite the District Collector's recommendation, dated 22.2.1999, after the District Committee meeting, nor was he informed about the decision made on his application. Therefore, the petitioner had come before this Court in W.P. No.18266 of 2000 and by an order, dated 1.11.2000, this Court had directed the appropriate authority to consider the petitioner for granting of the freedom fighters' pension, if the petitioner was found to be entitled for the same. The petitioner had received the letter from the Deputy Secretary, Public Department, dated 1.3.2001, rejecting the claim of the petitioner stating that the persons who had given the certificates were not the persons authorised by the Government to issue the said certificates. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the District Committee recommended the petitioner for the grant of freedom fighters' pension only after verifying all the relevant records and after a thorough enquiry had been conducted. Further, it is submitted that similarly placed persons had been granted freedom fighters' pension by the orders passed by this Court earlier. It is also pointed out that even if the applicant had been imprisoned during the relevant point of time, it would be impossible to get the co-prisoner certificate from either of the two persons named by the State Government for obtaining the certificate. Further, the records, in most cases, could not be traced since most of the documents had been destroyed. Inspite of that some relevant document had been submitted by the petitioner. However, the State Government had refused to grant freedom fighters’ pension to the petitioner. 9. Further, the records, in most cases, could not be traced since most of the documents had been destroyed. Inspite of that some relevant document had been submitted by the petitioner. However, the State Government had refused to grant freedom fighters’ pension to the petitioner. 9. For the reasons stated above, the rejection of the petitioner's claim by the Government cannot be valid since, only after proper inspection of the relevant documents and on conducting a detailed enquiry, the District Collector recommends the name of the applicant for grant of freedom fighters' pension. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decided cases: a) In Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and others AIR 2001 SC 3883 : 2001 (8) SCC 8 , the apex Court has held as follows: "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 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". 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 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." b) In Bhima Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu made in W.P. No. 19152 of 1996, dated 21.1.2000, this Court has held as follows: It is clear that after considering the claim of the petitioner, the District High Level Committee for freedom fighter has recommended the case of the petitioner for sanction of freedom fighters' pension. As rightly observed by the District Collector, Coimbatore, the Government have nominated only few persons in a District to issue certificates. We cannot expect that the certifiers authorised by the Government to give co-prisoner's certificate in a particular District, had also undergone imprisonment along with other prisoners of their district in the same Jail who claim freedom fighters' pension." c) In S. Somasundaram and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and another made in W.P. Nos.15465 and 15596 of 2001, dated 12.3.2002, this Court has held as follows: "10. Unless all the requirements are satisfied, the District Collector would not have arrived at the conclusion to recommend the cases of the petitioners and issue in favour of the petitioners granting them freedom fighters' pension and the reasons assigned in the impugned orders being untenable and evasive, in consideration of the totality of the circumstances, it has to be decided that absolutely there is nothing to show on the part of the Government to take an adverse view than the one taken by the District Collector and for rejecting the recommendations of the District Collector, no valid or tangible reason has been assigned on the part of the Government, thereby proving that the orders impugned as passed by the first respondent herein could only be rejected as without merit." Therefore, in the above circumstances, relying on the above decisions, this Court is of the view that the denial of freedom fighters' pension to the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Letter No. 19513/AO3/2000-7, dated 1.3.2001, is set aside and the first respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighters' pension in the light of the recommendation of the second respondent in Na. Ka. ou. 240511, dated 22.2.1999, and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected WPMP is closed. Writ petition disposed of with directions.