JUDGMENT By the Court.—This Special Appeal has been filed with the delay 304 days The delay has been sufficiently explained in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the affidavit of Sri P.K. Kaul, Under Secretary in the Freedom Fighters Division in the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, supporting the application for condonation of delay. The sanction for filing appeal was allowed on 3.3.2005. The delay condonation application is allowed The Special Appeal was heard. 2. We have heard Sri Satish Kumar Rai, for the appellants. Sri Ramesh Rai appears for the petitioner-respondent. 3. The Union of India is aggrieved by the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 26.8.2008, by which he has quashed the order dated 3.10.1978, to stop the freedom fighters pension of the petitioner Late Sri Vashist Rai - husband of Smt. Maliti Devi, and has directed the appellant-respondent to give pension forthwith to his widow month to month, and arrears of pension together with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum. 4. Late Sri Vashist Rai participated in the freedom movement. He joined National Freedom Struggle headed by Netaji Subash Chandra Bose. In the year 1938, he left the country, and went to Singapore. He was serving in a British Company known as Belting & Asbestos Company Ltd., since 4.7.1939. His services were terminated on account of his active participation in the National Movement as a member of Azad Hind Sangh w.e.f. June 1946. The reasons given in the letter, for which his services were terminated, are as follows: “As you know that you been engaged in this firm since 4th July 1939. During that period your work and loyalty were quire fair but - I regret to say that during Japanese occupation your speech and activities along with other Indian Staff were entirely against us and the British Crown. That is why I am asked to terminate your services. This effects from the 1st day of June 1946. Yours faithfully, For Belting & Asbestos Company Ltd. Sd/- Manager” 5. The petitioner applied for grant of pension from central revenues to freedom-fighters and their families on 15.8.1972. That is why I am asked to terminate your services. This effects from the 1st day of June 1946. Yours faithfully, For Belting & Asbestos Company Ltd. Sd/- Manager” 5. The petitioner applied for grant of pension from central revenues to freedom-fighters and their families on 15.8.1972. By a sanction order dated 27.11.1975, he was granted freedom-fighter pension at the rate of Rs.135/- per month, with the condition that the pension is liable to cancellation or modification without any notice, if it is found that it was sanctioned on mistaken grounds, or on false information. 6. By the impugned order dated 3.10.1978, the pension of Late Sri Vashist Rai was stopped on the grounds as follows : “It has been brought to the notice of this Ministry that the applicant was not eligible for grant of pension under the said Scheme for the reason given below : He has not produced acceptable evidence of loss of job under Govt. or Semi-govt. organisation or a local body. The pension of Rs.135/- p.m. provisionally sanctioned to the applicant vide this Ministry’s letter No. 32/1/Genl/75 FF.INA dated 27.11.75 hereby suspended pending enquiry.” 7. Learned Single Judge found, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India, 2002(1) ESC 32 (SC) and Mohan Singh v. Union of India, in writ petition No. 3790 of 1994 decided on 1.6.1995 and writ petition No. 14442 of 1995 decided on 11.12.1995, that the case of the claimants under the scheme is required to be determined on the basis of probabilities, and not on the touchstone of the test ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Once on the basis of evidence, it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by the cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence, and hyper-technical approach while dealing with the cause of a freedom fighter ignoring the basic principles/objectives of the scheme intended to give the benefit to the sufferers in the freedom movement, should not be adopted. The contradictions and discrepancies cannot be held to be material, which could be made the basis of depriving the person of his right to get the pension. 8. The contradictions and discrepancies cannot be held to be material, which could be made the basis of depriving the person of his right to get the pension. 8. Sri S.K. Rai, counsel for the appellant submits that Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme of 1972 was later on liberalised and renamed as Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme - 1980. Para 4 (f) of the explanation of the eligibility for the purpose of grant of pension under the scheme provides that : - “A person who lost his job (Central or State Government) and thus means of livelihood for participation in national movement.” 9. Sri S.K. Rai submits that since the petitioner Late Sri Vashist Rai was not in the job of either Central or State Government, the loss of livelihood from private employment will not entitle him to get freedom fighter pension. 10. The petitioner-respondent had applied for freedom fighter’s pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme 1972 which commenced from 15.8.1972. He was granted pension by sanction order dated 27.11.1975. In the original unamended scheme, para 3 (f) provided eligibility, for pension as follows : “A person who lost his job, civil or military or means of livelihood for participation in national movements.” 11. In the scheme of 1972, the words ‘civil or military’ have been used by way of illustration and that the words after the conjunctive ‘or’ categorize the persons, who lost their livelihood on account of participation in National movements, eligible for grant of freedom fighter pension. The word ‘or’ is used as function word to indicate alternative, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases. The explanation in the amended scheme of 1980 is also illustrative. It neither restricts nor increases the criteria or eligibility, for award of pension. 12. The letter of termination of the services of the petitioner Late Sri Sri Vashist Rai by Belting & Asbestos Company Ltd., 19 Philip Street, Singapore, a British Company on the ground that his speech and activities along with other Indian staff were entirely against the Company and the British Crown, is not denied. It was accepted as the eligibility criteria to award pension. The production of the letter thereafter did not bring about any change in the claim and thus it could not be a ground to make him ineligible for award of pension. 13. It was accepted as the eligibility criteria to award pension. The production of the letter thereafter did not bring about any change in the claim and thus it could not be a ground to make him ineligible for award of pension. 13. The Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme - 1980 amended the scheme by liberalising it and enhancing the rate of pension introduced on the eve of twenty fifth anniversary (Sliver Jubilee Year) of Independence, to all the freedom fighters as a token, to honour them. The amendment did not restrict nor can operate to either change the criteria or to take away the right, which was acquired under the old scheme, to suspend the pension. 14. We are in agreement with the reasons given by learned Single Judge that respondent-appellant authority had arbitrarily suspended the freedom fighter pension. The appellants acted beyond the authority, vested in them in reviewing the administrative order The Special Appeal is dismissed. —————