ORDER This writ petition is a classical example as to how widow of a freedom fighter could be harassed by the Government Officials during her old age. 2. Challenge in the writ petition is to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 17.12.2007, whereby the petitioner was called upon to elect between the Tamil Nadu Family Pension and the state Freedom Fighters' Pension, as she was the recipient of the service pension as well as Freedom Fighters' Pension. Factual Matrix 3. The petitioner is the widow of late N.S. Maruthai, a freedom fighter who took active part in the freedom struggle. Her husband was also a Government servant and he retired as a social welfare worker on 31.7.1980. He was granted pension by the State of Tamil Nadu as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The said Late Maruthai was also granted the Freedom Fighters' Pension as per order dated 6.8.1981 in recognition of his service to the nation. The State Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 699, Public (PP-Il) Department, dated 18.3.1980 as well as G.O. Ms. No. 386, Public (PP-II) Department, dated 9.3.1987 detailing the procedure to be followed for sanctioning pension as well as grant of pension to the widow of the freedom fighters. 4. The petitioner's husband died on 14.12.2007 and the family pension has been paid to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was the widow of the deceased freedom fighter, the third respondent passed necessary orders to pay the State Freedom Fighters' Pension to her. The petitioner has been receiving the State Freedom Fighters' Pension as well as the service pension till 30.6.2007 without any problem. While so, the fourth respondent, as per communication dated 26.7.2007, called upon the petitioner to inform as to whether she would be interested in getting the State Freedom Fighters' Pension or the Tamil Nadu Family Pension, as according to the said respondent, the petitioner was not entitled to receive both. The said communication was issued on the basis of the letter dated 5.4.2007, issued by the first respondent, as according to the first respondent, the pensioner has to elect between the two pensions in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 23 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 6.1.1996. The said communication was issued on the basis of the letter dated 5.4.2007, issued by the first respondent, as according to the first respondent, the pensioner has to elect between the two pensions in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 23 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 6.1.1996. Subsequently, the first respondent, as per communication dated 17.12.2007, called upon the petitioner to choose between the two pension, as according to him, it was not possible to pay the State Freedom Fighters' Pension as well as service pension to a pensioner. Aggrieved by the said proceeding, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. 5. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was indicated that in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, amendments were made to the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 197 8 as per G.O. Ms. No. 23, Finance (Pension) Department, whereby Rule 13(B) was inserted, which reads thus: "Rule 13(B) Family Pension admissible under this rule shall not be granted to a person who is already in receipt of Family Pension or is eligible therefor under any other pension rules, provided that a person, who is otherwise eligible for Family Pension under this rule, may opt to receive family pension under this rule if he foregoes family pension admissible for many other rules." 6. According to the second respondent, the Government, in their letter dated 2.6.2006, have requested all the District Collectors and District Treasury Officers to take necessary steps to implement the amended rules of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 in respect of those who receive more than one pension. It was also indicated that the third respondent, as per letter dated 20.7.2007, has instructed the fourth respondent to admit only one family pension from July 2007 onwards in respect of those who were in receipt of civil pension and State Freedom Fighters' Family Pension. The second respondent further contended that the impugned order dated 17.12.2007 was issued on a consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 31.7.2007 and there was nothing illegal in directing the petitioner to opt for anyone of the pension. 7. The fourth respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit in support of their contention that a pensioner, who receives the State Freedom Fighters' Pension, was not entitled to receive the civil service pension and the pensioner has to choose either civil pension or Freedom Fighters' pension. 7. The fourth respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit in support of their contention that a pensioner, who receives the State Freedom Fighters' Pension, was not entitled to receive the civil service pension and the pensioner has to choose either civil pension or Freedom Fighters' pension. 8. While considering the legality and correctness of the order passed by the first respondent, the back ground facts regarding launching the Freedom Fighters' Pension scheme has also to be considered. 9. Our country was liberated from the British rule due to the sacrifice made by hundreds and thousands of freedom fighters led by the father of our nation. On account of the inspiration received from the national leaders, the youth joined the freedom movement and many of them sacrificed their valuable life for the cause of independence. Many of the participants in the freedom movement were in their early age and their only aim was to liberate India from the foreign rule. The freedom fighters were not motivated by personal desires and they joined the movement not with an expectation that they would be rewarded by the free India in recognition of their services. It was only on account of the motivation of great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, they joined the freedom movement and their only motto was to attain independence. The freedom fighters suffered indignation. Many of them lost their family and they sacrificed everything for the cause of independence. It was only in recognition of their self-less services that the Government have come up with a proposal to grant Freedom Fighters' Pension. Grant of pension was never the demand of freedom fighters. It was a voluntary act on the part of the Government both at the Central as well as the State to evolve a scheme in recognition of the services rendered by the freedom fighters to the nation. There was nothing in the scheme, which says that only those who were not receiving any other pension would be entitled to the freedom fighters' pension. 10. The payment of Freedom Fighters' Pension was not a charity. It was only a recognition of the great service rendered by the freedom fighters to the nation. It was only on account of the self-less and dedicated service rendered by the freedom fighters that we are enjoying the freedom today. 10. The payment of Freedom Fighters' Pension was not a charity. It was only a recognition of the great service rendered by the freedom fighters to the nation. It was only on account of the self-less and dedicated service rendered by the freedom fighters that we are enjoying the freedom today. We have heard of freedom fighters who refused to submit application for payment of freedom fighters' pension, as according to them, they joined the freedom movement only with a mission and not with the expectation of a reward later. 11. In AIR 1993 SC 2127 , the issue before the Supreme Court was regarding the payment of pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 and as to whether pension has to be paid from the date of the scheme or from the date of application. in the said factual context, the Supreme Court also made a reference of the laudable scheme thus- "4. .........................It is common knowledge that those who participated in the freedom struggle either at the national level or in the erstwhile Nizam State, are scattered all over the country and most of them may even be inhabiting the remotest parts of the rural areas. What is more, almost all of them must have now grown pretty old, if they are alive. Where the freedom fighters are not alive and their widows and the unmarried daughters have to prefer claims, the position may still be worse with regard to their knowledge of the prescribed date. What is more, if the Scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it ill-behoves the Government to raise please of limitation against such claims. In fact, the Government, if it is possible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fighters or their dependents and approach them with the pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same. That would be the true spirit of working out such Schemes. The Scheme has rightly been renamed in 1985 as the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme to accord with its object. That would be the true spirit of working out such Schemes. The Scheme has rightly been renamed in 1985 as the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme to accord with its object. We, therefore, cannot countenance the plea of the Government that the claimants would only be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme if they made applications before a particular date notwithstanding that in fact they had suffered the imprisonment and made the sacrifices and were thus otherwise qualified to receive the benefit……." 12. In the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme announced by the Central as well as the State Government, there was nothing against grant of such pension to the recipients of civil pension. 13. The Freedom Fighters' Pension scheme was introduced by the State of Tamil Nadu in line with the schemes announced by various other state Governments as well as the Central Government. 14. The learned special Government Pleader was not in a position to point out any of the provisions of the scheme indicating any such prohibition for payment of Freedom Fighters' Pension, to a civil pensioner or his widow. 15. As observed by the Supreme Court in Mukund Lai Bhandarl v. Union of India (supra) case, the object in granting the freedom fighters pension was only to honour the freedom fighters and where it was necessary, to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given everything for the country in the hour of its need. The Supreme Court further observed that the spirit of the scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind of a programme of compensation. The Scheme should retain its high objective with which it was motivated. 16. The Government have also decided to grant the freedom fighters' pension to the widow of the freedom fighters. Necessary provisions were also made in the regulations for grant of such pension, in the event of the death of the freedom fighter. 17. The amendment made to the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 as per G.O. Ms. No. 23, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 6.1.1996 was only in respect of pensioners, who have retired from the state civil service. The said pension cannot be equated with a pension payable under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme. 17. The amendment made to the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 as per G.O. Ms. No. 23, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 6.1.1996 was only in respect of pensioners, who have retired from the state civil service. The said pension cannot be equated with a pension payable under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme. Freedom Fighters' Pension is essentially not a pension in the true sense of the term. It was essentially in the nature of a grant given in recognition of the services rendered by the freedom fighters to the cause of Indian independence. While interpreting the rules, the intention of the framers have also to be considered. It was not the intention to curtail the freedom fighter of his civil pension on account of his receipt of freedom fighters' pension. 18. Pension is a regular payment made by the State to its retired employees. The pension is payable to the employees in accordance with the relevant service Rules. As per Rule 13(B), prohibition is only for receiving two kinds of civil pension and in fact, there was no restriction for payment of military pension to an employee, who got employment in the civil service after his retirement from the military service. The family pension referred to in Rule 13(B) is only civil pension and it has nothing to do with Freedom Fighters' Pension. 19. The Freedom Fighters' Pension granted to a freedom fighter as per the Scheme framed by the Government, by no stretch of imagination, could be termed as a pension on account of a service rendered in the civil service. The service rendered by the freedom fighter to enable him to receive the Freedom Fighters' Pension is a service rendered to the nation. This pension is confined to those freedom fighters who have sacrificed their lives and those freedom fighters who have the opportunity to see the free India and their widows. 20. The first respondent has given a too narrow interpretation to Rule 13(B) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. The first respondent has not taken any efforts to ascertain as to whether the Freedom Fighters' Pension was a charity. The petitioner was receiving only a legitimate pension which was sanctioned by the Government as per the provisions of a scheme. The petitioner is entitled to the civil service pension as a matter of right, as her husband was a Government Servant. The petitioner was receiving only a legitimate pension which was sanctioned by the Government as per the provisions of a scheme. The petitioner is entitled to the civil service pension as a matter of right, as her husband was a Government Servant. Therefore, the Freedom Fighters' Pension cannot be termed as a pension within the meaning of Rule 13(B) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. 21. The petitioner is aged about 81 years and during the fag end of her life, she was compelled to file a writ petition on account of the order passed by the first respondent without making an effort to differentiate the pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme as well as under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. 22. The Treasury officers and Pension Pay officers have been taking a too technical approach in the matter of payment of Freedom Fighters' Pension as well as other benefits to the pensioners and as a result, there were series of writ petitions preferred by the freedom fighters before this Court, while considering the writ petition preferred by the Tamil Nadu Freedom Fighters Association, for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the Government to order issue of free bus passes to all Freedom Fighters domiciled in Tamil Nadu drawing Central Pension alone or both Central and State Pension or State Pension only without any discrimination among them (1993) 2 MLJ 254 : 1993 W.L.R. 694, His Lordship Justice D. RAJU (as his Lordship then was) made the following observationat p. 256 of MLJ: "5. .................. The very object of the concession is to ameliorate the conditions of those who fought for the country and in recognition of the sacrifice made and the patriotic fervour of those who fought for the freedom of the nation and the payment of the pension to the dependents of such freedom fighters even after the life time of the freedom fighters itself appears to be in recognition of such meritorious and selfless service rendered for the nation at a crucial phase of the country's freedom struggle........" 23. Considering the laudable object in granting the Freedom Fighters' Pension, as per the Scheme framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the line of the Scheme framed by the Union Government, it is beyond any cavil that the receipt of Freedom Fighters' Pension is not a disqualification to receive civil pension. Considering the laudable object in granting the Freedom Fighters' Pension, as per the Scheme framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the line of the Scheme framed by the Union Government, it is beyond any cavil that the receipt of Freedom Fighters' Pension is not a disqualification to receive civil pension. Rule 13(B) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 was inserted only for the purpose of avoiding grant of two civil service pension to the very same pensioner and it has nothing to do with the pension payable to a freedom fighter. Therefore, I do not find any reason to sustain the order of the first respondent dated 17.12.2007. 24. In the result, the impugned order dated 17.12.2007 on the file of the first respondent is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents' are directed to pay the Freedom Fighters' Pension to the petitioner in addition to the service pension, which she is receiving on account of the service rendered by her deceased husband in the State Civil Service. No costs. Petition allowed.