Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 03.04.2003 in No. 52/CC/TN/280/2000-FF/SZ and quash the same and also to direct the first respondent to grant Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension (herein after referred to as SSS Pension) to the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.K.Ravindranath, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that having inspired by the freedom movement lead by Mahatma Gandhi, the petitioner joined the movement, at the age of 15 years. An agitation had been planned at Chidambaram, Cuddalore District against the police officials by the Indian National Congress leaders, the petitioner also participated in the agitation, in which there was a clash between police and the agitators, which resulted in causing damage to the police vehicle at the office of the Cuddalore Municipality. Subsequently, the petitioner and others were arrested and produced before a Magistrate at Cuddalore and detained in Sub-jail, Manjakuppam. On 07.08.1942 a resolution was adopted by All India Congress Committee demanding the Britishers to quit India and on 08.08.1942, Mahatma Gandhi delivered a speech, which was published in all the newspapers and the police, in order to prevent the circulation of newspapers, published with the speech of Mahatma Gandhi, police searched for the petitioner, as he was a news paper Agent and also an active member in the freedom movement. However, the petitioner went underground to continue his agitation against the Britishers. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had actively participated in the freedom struggle and was arrested and detained in jail on several occasions. The name of the petitioner has been printed in the book published by the Government of Tamil Nadu, under the title Whos Who of Freedom Fighters (Tamil Nadu) Volume II on 11th August 1973, which was released by the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in a public function. Only after conducting a thorough enquiry through a committee consisting of officers and responsible leaders who involved in the freedom struggle, the book was released by the State Government. 5. It 1973, the petitioner was awarded Thamarapatra, recognising him a freedom fighter by Government of Tamil Nadu. Only after conducting a thorough enquiry through a committee consisting of officers and responsible leaders who involved in the freedom struggle, the book was released by the State Government. 5. It 1973, the petitioner was awarded Thamarapatra, recognising him a freedom fighter by Government of Tamil Nadu. On 17.11.1981, the office of the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras in L.Dis.No.16483/R2/81 issued a jail memo which reads as follows: "It is verified from the Remand Register of this Prison for the year 1943 that one R. Kannan S/o. Ranganathan No.28, Nabbir Street, Cuddalore (N.T.) was admitted on 04.12.1943 as a Remand Prisoner (R.P. No.8799) having been remanded by the Commissioner of Police, Madras in X Crime No.1680/43 dated 04.12.1943 under Section 17(1) C.L.A. Act and Rules 38(5) and 39(6) of D.O.I. Rules and 41 C.P. Act. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. For 3 (three) months and fine of Rs.20/- in default 2 weeks S.I. on the file of III Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras in C.C. No.3355/43 dated 11.12.1943". 6. In the aforesaid memo, the Jail Superintendent has specifically stated the exact date on which the petitioner was remanded to jail. He has further informed that the fact as to whether the petitioner was transferred to some other jail could not be traced out, since the convict register was pertaining to the year 1943. As per the impugned order dated 03.04.2003 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner herein was informed that the Government of Tamil Nadu vide letter No.49592/PP I/2002-1, dated 21.11.2002 had forwarded the petitioners written representation dated 21.09.2002, only with a copy of the book "Whos Who of Freedom Fighters" (Tamil Nadu), which was re-examined by the first respondent under the provision of the SSS Pension Scheme, 1980, however, as per the impugned order, it was informed by the first respondent that the petitioner was not found eligible for the grant of SSS Pension for the following reasons. "(i) The Government of Tamil Nadu has reported that you have not submitted new documentary evidences to prove your underground/jail suffering. (ii) The Whos who of Freedom Fighters Tamil Nadu submitted by you was published by the Government of Tamil Nadu in August, 1973 on the occasion of the Silver Jubilee Year. "(i) The Government of Tamil Nadu has reported that you have not submitted new documentary evidences to prove your underground/jail suffering. (ii) The Whos who of Freedom Fighters Tamil Nadu submitted by you was published by the Government of Tamil Nadu in August, 1973 on the occasion of the Silver Jubilee Year. In this connection, it may be mentioned that only such documentary evidence based on lists and books in regard to political suffering which had already been published by 1951-52 by various State Government and other Quasi Official Agencies are acceptable under the Scheme." 7. The petitioner was informed by the said letter that the position of the case of the petitioner remained unchanged, expressing regret for not acceding to the request of the petitioner for the grant of SSS Pension, on the aforesaid grounds, that there was no new documentary evidence to prove his claim. 8. It is an admitted fact that both the respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any counter in the writ petition. Mr.K.Ravindarnath, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the book Whos Who of Freedom Fighters (Tamil Nadu) was published by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1973 on the occasion of Silver Jubilee year of Independence. The first respondent, by letter, dated 03.04.2003 had informed the petitioner that only such documentary evidence based on list and books in regard to political suffering, which had already been published in 1951-52 by various State Governments and other Quasi Official Agencies are acceptable under the Scheme. On the aforesaid grounds, the request of the petitioner to consider him for SSS Pension Scheme was negatived by the first respondent. 9. Mrs. C.K. Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent fairly submitted that the book, Whos Who of Freedom Fighters (Tamil Nadu) was published under the authority of Government of Tamil Nadu, after making proper enquiry by a competent committee, consisting of officers and notable Freedom Fighters, as stated in the book. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent also informed the Court that the Government of Tamil Nadu has not published any other book in the year 1951-52 on Freedom Fighters, as stated by the first respondent in the impugned order. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent also informed the Court that the Government of Tamil Nadu has not published any other book in the year 1951-52 on Freedom Fighters, as stated by the first respondent in the impugned order. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the book published with the title, Whos Who of Freedom Fighters (Tamil Nadu) and released on 11th August 1973, contains genuine details and other particulars relating to freedom fighters in Tamil Nadu. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, it is an authenticated book published by the Government of Tamil Nadu about the freedom fighters of Tamil Nadu. Merely because the book was published on the occasion of the silver jubilee year of Independence, the details given in the book cannot be disputed by the first respondent. Similarly, when there was no such book published in the year 1951-52 showing the details of the freedom fighters by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent cannot ask the petitioner to produce such a record, which is not in existence, on the ground that various States had published books in the year 1951-52. As per the typed set filed along with the petition, the petitioner herein, has enclosed the Thamarapatra relating to the year 1973 given to the petitioner to establish the fact that he was a freedom fighter. The Thamarapatra was issued by the Honble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu to the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu has not published any book regarding freedom fighters in the year 1951-52, as stated by the first respondent in the impugned order. The aforesaid factum is not disputed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent as discussed earlier. It is not the case of the first respondent that the name of the petitioner does not find a place in the book that was published in the year 195152 by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Even without verifying the fact that the Government of Tamil Nadu has not issued any book containing the details of freedom fighters in the year 1951-52, by the impugned order, the first respondent had asked the petitioner to produce a book, which was not in existence. 11. Even without verifying the fact that the Government of Tamil Nadu has not issued any book containing the details of freedom fighters in the year 1951-52, by the impugned order, the first respondent had asked the petitioner to produce a book, which was not in existence. 11. It is and admitted fact that the petitioner had already filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.8812 of 1995 and by an order dated 10.07.1995, this Court directed the first respondent herein to dispose of the petitioners application seeking for SSS Pension within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order passed by this Court. AS per order, dated 19.02.1996, Central Pension Accounting Office, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, in reference No. MHAFF9600110/6510 had authorised to make following monthly payments to the petitioner, under the pension scheme, as per the details given in the enclosed PPO, specifying the date of commencing of pension as 02.101994 and monthly pension Rs.1,500/-. However, by the impugned order, dated 03.04.2003, the petitioners request under SSS Pension Scheme was negatived by the first respondent, for which the first respondent has raised the query that the petitioner herein had not produced any new evidence to prove his underground/jail suffering. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein was given freedom fighters pension from Government of Tamil Nadu, the second respondent herein, however, the petitioner returned the entire amount received by him as pension, in order to get SSS Pension, for which he is eligible. As per the pension scheme introduced by the first respondent, certain eligibility conditions have been stipulated for the purpose of grant of SSS Pension to a freedom fighter (A) A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before independence. Ex-INA personnel are also eligible for pension if the imprisonment/detention suffered by them was out side India for six months or more. In case of women and SC/ST freedom fighters the minimum period of actual imprisonment for eligibility of pension is three months. It has been further stated in the explanation as follows: i) Detention under the orders of the competent authority will be considered as imprisonment. In case of women and SC/ST freedom fighters the minimum period of actual imprisonment for eligibility of pension is three months. It has been further stated in the explanation as follows: i) Detention under the orders of the competent authority will be considered as imprisonment. ii) Period of normal remission upto one month will be treated as part of actual imprisonment iii) In case of a trial ending in conviction, under trial period will be counted towards imprisonment suffered. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has not disputed the fact that for claiming SSS pension, one could have suffered a minimum period of imprisonment of six months or more participating in the freedom struggle before Independence. It is not in dispute that a person is eligible to get SSS Pension, if he had been suffered imprisonment / detention for a period of six months or more in prison in the freedom struggle. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Government of Tamil Nadu has published Whos Who of Freedom Fighters (Tamil Nadu) book on 11th August 1973. In the preface itself, it has been elaborately discussed by the Special Additional Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu in detail as follows: "The Government of India had suggested to the State Government that a "Whos Who" of Freedom Fighters should be prepared by the State Government. The Government of India had indicated that they were themselves preparing a regular "History of the Freedom Movement". The "Whos Who" was to be a supplement to the History of the Freedom Movement. 2. The Government of India felt that this work must be done only by the State Government because the records were available only in the State Archives and the local courts. The intention was to collect important particulars in respect of all persons who had participated in the freedom struggle. The State Government accepted the suggestion of the Government of India. They constituted a Committee for this purpose in April, 1964. The Committee consisted of the following persons:- 1. Dr. Selvi S. Vijayalakshmi 2. Thiru R. Krishnaswami Naidu 3. Thiru R. Venkatarajulu Dr. Selvi S. Vijayalakshmi was appointed as the Convener of the Committee. The Committee was reconstituted in October 1966 on the death of Thiru R. Venkatarajulu. The following persons were nominated as additional members:- 1. Thiru V.R. Radhakrishnan 2. Thiru S.S. Vasan 3. Dr. Selvi S. Vijayalakshmi 2. Thiru R. Krishnaswami Naidu 3. Thiru R. Venkatarajulu Dr. Selvi S. Vijayalakshmi was appointed as the Convener of the Committee. The Committee was reconstituted in October 1966 on the death of Thiru R. Venkatarajulu. The following persons were nominated as additional members:- 1. Thiru V.R. Radhakrishnan 2. Thiru S.S. Vasan 3. Thiru N. Ramakrishna Iyer 4. Thiru R. Kulandaivelu (then Director of Information and Publicity) 3. The State Committee issued a questionnaire to Freedom Fighters whose addresses were known. It also issued a Press Release calling upon all the Freedom Fighters to send their particulars. The Committee also appointed representatives for each district to collect the details in respect of Freedom Fighters of their districts. The Director of Rural Development was also requested to give directions to panchayats for furnishing particulars in respect of Freedom Fighters residing within the jurisdiction of those panchayats. 4. The Committee took up the work of collecting information from official records also. The Committee perused the records available in the Archives. The Committee also got information from the various jails as regards the term of imprisonment. The collection of details from the Superintendents of Jails turned out to be a Herculean task. Some of these records which had to be consulted were already many years old. They were by no means in a fine state of preservation. In some cases, old issues of newspapers and books were referred to. On account of the passage of time, it was by no means an easy task, to collect authentic information in respect of each and every freedom fighter. However, the Committee and the staff working on this put forth their best and made sincere efforts to collect the maximum information possible. 5. The Tamil Nadu State Archives rendered a great deal of assistance in this regard. The officers of the Jail Department including those from jails located in other States gave a great deal of assistance. Where authentic official documents were not available, the fact has been indicated with an asterisk denoting the fact that no documentary evidence was available. 6. The State Committee was wound up in March, 1972, after it had completed the work. The work of printing the volumes was then taken up. The first volume was printed at Stree Seva Mandir Press. The second and the third volumes were printed at the Government Press, Madras. 6. The State Committee was wound up in March, 1972, after it had completed the work. The work of printing the volumes was then taken up. The first volume was printed at Stree Seva Mandir Press. The second and the third volumes were printed at the Government Press, Madras. The printing work was supervised by the Special Additional Secretary to Government, Public Department. It was our endeavour to complete the entire work and release the volumes in the Jayanthi year itself which marks the 25th Anniversary of Independence. 7. It is sincerely hoped that the work would be found useful by all sections of the public." 14. The preface of the book published by the Government of Tamil Nadu shows that the details furnished about the freedom fighters by the State Government of Tamil Nadu, is an authenticated statement prepared after thorough enquiry, having gone through relevant records and registers available with the authorities. In the instant case, there is no contrary evidence against the details published about the petitioner herein at page 377 of the book, Whos Who of Freedom Fighters (Tamil Nadu), which reads as follows: "Kannan s/o. Ranganadha Padayachi: b. 1920 : News Agent – Joined the movement in 1940 – Took part in 1942 August Movement, arrested under Section 38(5) of Defence of India Rules and sentenced to eight months and two weeks kept in Alipuram and Madras jails – Address: Manjakuppam, Cuddalore South Arcot District." 15. As per this statement published by the Government of Tamil Nadu, it is made crystal clear that the petitioner underwent imprisonment and he was sentenced to eight months and two weeks in the freedom struggle. He had joined in the freedom movement in 1940 and took active part in 1942 August Movement and he had been arrested by the British Government and imprisoned for more than eight months. In order to enlighten the Court on the legal aspect, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision, Gabriel, D. vs. The Government of India, 1991 WLR 49, wherein this Court has held that the claim for pension of a freedom fighter is not gratuitous act of any authorities and they must not adopt inflexible attitude in interpreting the rules too strictly, which is deprecated. 16. 16. On seeing the aforesaid records produced by the petitioner before the first respondent, I am unable to accept the unreasonable defence raised by the office of the first respondent herein. It is the duty of the any authority in the independent India to recognise and respect the sacrifice made by any freedom fighter, when it is established that the claimant is a freedom fighter. In the instant case, the first respondent cannot dispute the fact that the petitioner is a freedom fighter. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was given pension as freedom fighter under the State Government Scheme and the entire pension amount of Rs.57,804/- received by the petitioner was also refunded by him to the State Government, in order to get SSS Pension under the first respondent herein. Though in the earlier writ petition in W.P. No.8812 of 1995, this Court, by order dated 10.07.1995, directed the first respondent herein to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for SSS Pension, after granting the pension, subsequently, on unreasonable and untenable grounds, it was rejected by the first respondent. 17. Normally when the issue involved in a writ petition is a mixed question of law and facts or alternative remedy is available, this Court is directing the parties to approach the authorities to consider the same, such direction given by this Court is not a mere formality. When there is such a direction, the authorities must scrupulously follow the direction and pass appropriate orders in the true letter and spirit of the direction to meet the ends of justice. Mechanically it should not be disposed of by any authorities, making a compelling circumstance to the aggrieved person to file another writ petition, seeking the very same relief in some other form. 18. I am of the considered view that the direction given by this Court was not properly considered by the office of the first respondent. In fact, as per order dated 19.02.1996, the petitioner was given monthly pension under the SSS Pension Scheme from 02.10.1994 and the date of commencement of the pension was also intimated by the Central Pension Accounting Office, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, dated 19.02.1996, wherein the P.P.O.Number is stated as MHAFF9600110/6510 and the monthly pension is stated as Rs.1,500/-. However, the first respondent informed the petitioner subsequently that the petitioner was not eligible to SSS Pension. However, the first respondent informed the petitioner subsequently that the petitioner was not eligible to SSS Pension. The order of the first respondent, dated 15.05.1998 reads as follows : "3. It has also been found that you were in jail from 18.12.43 to 18.3.44 i.e. 3 months, in the cases registered in 1943 whereas according to SSSP scheme a minimum suffering of six months is required. You had claimed as underground from 10.11.42 to 5.10.43 but have not indicated the details of the case(s) which compelled you to remain underground. You should, therefore, furnish copies of FIR, record of the criminal court, which tried the case (s), warrant of arrest, abstracts of absconders register, order of attachment / forfeiture of property, order of the civil judge who executed the decree, CID reports etc. In the absence of these documents your claim remains unsubstantiated and ingenuine. 4. For the reasons individually and / or collectively stated in paras 1, 2 and 3 above, it is found that your case is ineligible for grant of SSSP. Accordingly, it is proposed that - (i) the pension already sanctioned should be cancelled; and (ii) the recoveries may be made of the pension already paid with interest. 5. Before, however, a final decision is taken you are called upon to show cause as to why the proposed action may not be taken against you. Any representation which you. Any representation which you may wish to make should be in writing and should be submitted to the undersigned within 15 days of the receipt of this letter failing which it will be presumed that you have no points to urge and action as deemed fit will be taken on the basis of records and evidence already available without giving you any further opportunity." 19. It cannot be disputed that as per the Constitution of India, we have only a Quasi-Federal Government and accordingly, the separation of power is vested with the Central Government and the State Governments. The local administration, maintaining records etc., are pertaining to State list and State Governments have proper mechanism at the gross root level to verify the genuineness of the claim made in the pension scheme and it is the duty of the first respondent to accept the same, unless there is real suspicious circumstance in the details furnished by the claimant. The local administration, maintaining records etc., are pertaining to State list and State Governments have proper mechanism at the gross root level to verify the genuineness of the claim made in the pension scheme and it is the duty of the first respondent to accept the same, unless there is real suspicious circumstance in the details furnished by the claimant. The case on hand relates to a senior citizen, aged more than 85 years and that too a freedom fighter, which is not in dispute. Only after considering all the available records pertaining to the detention of the freedom fighter, the Government of Tamil Nadu published the Book, Whos Who of Freedom Fighters (Tamil Nadu) book on 11th August 1973 and there are other supporting documents produced by him. However, even without knowing the factum that the Government of Tamil Nadu has not published any such book in the year 195152, based on the books published by some other states, mechanically, letter, dated 03.04.2003 has been addressed by the Office of the first respondent to the petitioner to produce list of books in regard to political suffering which had already been published by 1951-52 by various State Government and other Quasi Official Agencies. When the State Government itself has issued an authenticated book, there would be no rationalia in asking documents relating to quasi official Agencies. 20. It is unfortunate that the office of the first respondent has asked the petitioner herein to produce such a document, without knowing the fact that no such book was published by the Government of Tamil Nadu during 1951-52 and further, it was mechanically informed that new documentary evidence to prove the petitioners underground / jail sufferings not produced and that documentary evidence of other Quasi Judicial Agencies are accepted under the Scheme. When the State Government itself has prepared an authenticated book and published the same, after conducting proper enquiry and the details of the petitioner has been specifically stated that he was sentenced to more than 8 months, the first respondent cannot dispute the documentary evidence and ask the petitioner any evidence of Quasi-Judicial Agencies would be acceptable. There is no relevancy or rationalia available in the said reply for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, a freedom fighter at the evening of his life. There is no relevancy or rationalia available in the said reply for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, a freedom fighter at the evening of his life. It is not disputed that the petitioner was awarded Tamarapatra, being the freedom fighter by the Government of Tamil Nadu and he was given pension as freedom fighter by the State Government and therefore, it is not proper on the part of the first respondent to ignore or reject the legally acceptable evidence, which is sufficient to establish the claim of the freedom fighter for getting SSS Pension. 21. Even as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the documents produced by the petitioner herein are sufficient to establish that he is eligible to claim pension, since he was arrested under Section 38 (5) of Defence of India Rules and sentenced to eight months and two weeks and also kept in Alipuram and Madras Jails, on account of his participation in the freedom struggle. Considering the certificate issued by the jail authorities and the recognised other freedom fighters, the State Government recognised the petitioner eligible for pension. 22. It is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that six months imprisonment during freedom struggle is sufficient to seek pension under SSS Pension Scheme. It is an undisputed fact that all the Registers are not permanent records in any public office. Even some of the Court records are liable to be destroyed, three years after the disposal of the matter and certain records could be disposed of after 20 years. In Civil Court, except the suit register, other records cannot be treated as permanent records. 23. In such circumstances, in spite of the certificate issued by the jail authorities, stating the imprisonment of the petitioner during freedom movement in the year 1942-43 and when the jail authority says that they could not trace the said register, due to efflux of time, the authorities cannot impose unreasonable condition on the freedom fighter. 24. This Court by order dated 24.03.2009 passed in W.P. No.31206 of 2007 in para 11 as in a similar case as follows: "11. 24. This Court by order dated 24.03.2009 passed in W.P. No.31206 of 2007 in para 11 as in a similar case as follows: "11. It is not known as to what sort of new documents the petitioner who is aged 88 years can produce except those issued by the eminent persons who have fought for the freedom of the country along with the petitioner in or about 1942 and who have been nominated for that purpose. Therefore, the finding of the respondent in the impugned order that no new documents have been produced has no meaning. As held by the Division Bench, the mere technicality should not stand in the way of rendering substantial justice, especially in this case as it is not gratuitous and it is an obligation on the part of the Government to make such payment on prima facie conclusion that the person is eligible under the Scheme." 25. The Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (1980), Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme (1972) etc., are being implemented for the benefit of the freedom fighters recognising their sacrifice and service rendered during the freedom struggle. While undergoing the ordeal of suffering in the prison and torcher, the freedom fighters could not have realised that they would be given any benefit under the pension schemes, after attaining independence. Their sacrifice and service of a freedom fighter should not be undermined by bureaucrats and while deciding whether a freedom fighter is eligible to get pension or not, when it is established that the claimant is a freedom fighter. Legal mandates cannot be ignored by the authorities. If there is any denial of benefit under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension scheme or Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme to any freedom fighter on flimsy grounds, that would be highly condemnable. 26. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that in the book published on the title, Whos Who of Freedom Fighters (Tamil Nadu) on 11.08.1973, Vol.II at page number 377, it is clearly stated that Kannan, S/o Ranganadha Padayachi born in 1920, a news agent had joined the movement in 1940 and took part in 1942 August Movement and was arrested under Section 38 (5) of Defence of India Rules and sentenced to eight months and two weeks and kept in Alipuram and Madras jails. His address is given as Manjakuppam, Cuddalore, South Arcot District. 27. His address is given as Manjakuppam, Cuddalore, South Arcot District. 27. Only after conducting proper enquiry by responsible officers, based on evidence published the book by the Government of Tamil Nadu, which was released by the Honble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on 11.08.1973. It is an authenticated book published by the Government of Tamil Nadu, apart from this, the petitioner has produced number of other supporting documents to establish that he is a freedom fighter eligible for SSS Pension. He was also given Freedom Fighters Pension by the State Government, however, the petitioner refunded the entire amount, in order to seek pension under the SSS Pension Scheme. In such circumstances, it is unfair and unjustifiable on the part of the first respondent to stop the pension given to the petitioner under the scheme, saying that the petitioner has not produced any new document evidencing to prove his underground / jail suffering and also to produce a book published in the year 1951-1952 by various state Governments and quasi official agencies, when there was no such book published by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1951-52, as admitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. 28. It is clear from the available records that a genuine freedom fighter has been driven from pillar to post, at the evening of his life, on unreasonable and unjustifiable grounds and accordingly, his claim of pension has been rejected by the first respondent, hence, to meet the ends of justice, the writ petition has to be allowed with costs. 29. In the result, this writ petition is allowed with costs against the first respondent and the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 03.04.2003 in No.52/CC/TN/280/2000-FF/SZ is quashed. The first respondent is directed to grant Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension to the petitioner from the date of his representation with 12% interest. The first respondent is also directed to pay the entire amount payable to the petitioner, after deducting the amount already paid to him, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.