Judgment :- The writ petitioner, who is aged 84 years, has participated in the freedom struggle and he was eligible as per the criteria formulated by the first respondent for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension. The said policy was enunciated by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.581, Public (Political Pension-II) Department, dated 14. 1983. 2. The petitioner has submitted his application as early as in the year 1983 vide his petition dated 24. 1983, which was resubmitted after enclosing necessary records. By communication dated 6. 1994, the Under Secretary to Government directed the Collector of North Arcot District to verify the official documentary evidence pertaining to the petitioner, such as extracts of jail records, court order, INA certificate, co-prisoners certificate. 3. It is seen in the letter of the first respondent dated 4. 2009 that the District Collector has convened the meeting of the District Screening Committee on 6. 2008 and in that, after deliberation, a decision was taken for recommending the name of the petitioner for the purpose of sanctioning Freedom Fighters Pension. In the subsequent letter of the third respondent dated 16. 2009 addressed to the Government, the third respondent has again stated that in the Screening Committee meeting held on 6. 2007 it was decided that even though the petitioner has got the awards having participated in the Sathyagraha movement and he has lost his left eye, since he has not completed the age of 70 years his case should be considered as a special case for the purpose of grant of Freedom Fighters Pension. 4. The Screening Committee, consisting of the District Collector and other members, constituted as per the Government Order, by resolution dated 16. 2009 has also found that the earlier application of the petitioner dated 110. 1988 was not considered due to the reason that at that time he has not crossed 70 years even though he has complied with all other requirements. The Screening Committee has again reiterated its stand that at that time even though there was a deficit of 2 years and 8 months for completion of 70 years, the petitioner should have been considered for grant of pension. 5. As on date, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed 70 years and now he is running 84 years. 5. As on date, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed 70 years and now he is running 84 years. In spite of such categoric stand taken by the Government as well as the District Collector and the Screening Committee all throughout the proceedings, it is not known as to why the Freedom Fighters pension has not been sanctioned to the petitioner. It is astonishing to see that an application filed by a person as early as in the year 1983, who fought for the freedom of this country, is kept pending for 36 years dragging him from pillar to post. The records very well show that the avowed object of the Government is attempted to be implemented by the Under Secretary to the Government, the District Collector and other higher officials, but somehow the same is delayed successfully by the officials of the respondent/Department for 36 years, aggrieved by which, the petitioner being a vexed man has approached this Court for sanction of Freedom Fighters Pension. 6. The Apex Court, time and again, has taken a categoric stand that in cases of Freedom Fighters Pension it is for the Government to go to the doors of the freedom fighters to pay the amount and not to make the freedom fighters to come to the court. In spite of such view, the officials of the respondent/Department are lethargic and careless in looking into this aspect on humanitarian considerations, ignoring the avowed object of the Government. 7. In spite of the fact that the higher officials like the Under Secretary to the Government and the District Collector have consistently favoured the sanction of pension to the petitioner, it appears that the matter is kept pending only because of the egoistic attitude of the officials of the respondent/Department which is highly condemnable. 8. On a reference to the documents, at no point of time any dispute has been raised about the participation of the petitioner in the freedom struggle and in fact, there is a categoric finding that the petitioner participated in the Sathyagraha movement and has also lost his left eye. In spite of the same, some of the officials of the respondent/Department, as it is seen in the communications, intend to further drag on the matter with the plea of filing a detailed counter. In spite of the same, some of the officials of the respondent/Department, as it is seen in the communications, intend to further drag on the matter with the plea of filing a detailed counter. This attitude of the officials of the respondent/Department is highly deplorable and they cannot take each such cases lethargically, more particularly the cases relating to Freedom Fighters Pension. 9. I am, therefore, of the considered view that a positive direction should be given to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders regarding grant of pension to the petitioner so as to see that the petitioner in the advanced age at least has a satisfaction that the Government has recognised his services to the country. 10. In these circumstances, the writ petition stands ordered with direction to the first respondent to take note of the recommendations of the Screening Committee as well as the District Collector and pass appropriate orders granting the Freedom Fighters Pension to the petitioner as per law and such grant shall be effected within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent shall report compliance of this order to the Registry. No costs.