Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying that this Court may be pleased to set aside the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.09.2010, and to, consequently, direct the respondents to grant State Freedom Fighters Pension, to the petitioner, from the date of his application, along with interest. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. The petitioner has stated that he was a Freedom Fighter who had taken part in the 'Quit India Movement', in the month of November, 1942, as a member of the Nethaji Valibar Sangham. Whileso, he was arrested along with certain others and convicted for a period of three months and was lodged in Bellari Alipuram Jail, from 15.10.1942 to 15.01.1943. The petitioner was aged about 21 years, when he was convicted for his participation in the 'Quit India Movement'. 4. The petitioner has further stated that he had submitted an application, on 24.09.1999, to the first respondent, through the second respondent, for the grant of State Freedom Fighters Pension, along with the two Co-Prisoner's certificates, issued by S.K.Kaliyappan and C.L.Munusamy, who had been authorised to issue such certificates. He had enclosed the family card and the other relevant documents, along with the application. However, the second respondent, by his proceedings, dated 25.01.2003, had informed the first respondent, that the petitioner had not completed 18 years of age, at the time of his imprisonment, without proper application of mind. Therefore, the first respondent, had rejected the claim of the petitioner, by his letter, dated 30.04.2003, without calling for an explanation, and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, to substantiate his claims. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition, before this Court, in W.P.No.21733 of 2003, challenging the said order, dated 30.04.2003, issued by the first respondent. This Court had passed an order, dated 29.03.2010, in W.P.No.21733 of 2003, setting aside the impugned order of the first respondent and directing the petitioner to submit the relevant documents, before the Second Respondent, to establish his age and to substantiate his claims. Eventhough, the petitioner had submitted the necessary documents, including the Record Sheet sent by the Head Master of the school concerned, the first respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner, by his proceedings, dated 30.09.2010. Eventhough, the petitioner had submitted the necessary documents, including the Record Sheet sent by the Head Master of the school concerned, the first respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner, by his proceedings, dated 30.09.2010. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present Writ Petition, before this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 5. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that a scheme, for the grant of Freedom Fighters Pension, was introduced by the State Government, by its order, in G.O.Ms.2064, Public (General) Department, dated 28.09.1966, with effect from 01.01.1966. According to the said Government Order, Freedom Fighters, who were sentenced to imprisonment or held under detention for not less than three months, or who were killed in action or awarded caital punishment, or died due to firing or lathi charge, on account of participation in the National movement, were eligible for sanction of the State freedom Fighers Pension. Subsequently, certain other categories of persons, who had participated in certain other movements, were also included in the said scheme. It had also been pointed out that, in the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.951, dated 18.05.1981, the period of three months imprisonment that had been prescribed in the earlier Government Order had been reduced to three weeks, with effect from 01.04.1980 and the Income ceiling originally fixed, had also been removed, with effect from 11.03.1983. 6. It had also been stated that, a fresh scheme had been introduced, in G.O.Ms.No.2015, Public (Political Pension. II) Department, dated 16.11.1988, framing certain revised rules for the grant of the State Freedom Fighters Pension. Further, G.O. Ms. No.30, Public (Political Pension. II) Department, dated 07.02.1996, had been introduced, regarding the acceptance of co-prisoner's certificate. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has also been stated that, as per the guide lines issued to the District Level Screening Committee, a freedom fighter, who was 18 years of age, when he was imprisoned, can obtain a co-prisoner's certificate, from any one of the two authorised certifiers of that District, indicating the period of imprisonment in the jail, in which the individual and the co-prisoner had undergone imprisonment, concurrently. 8. It had also been stated that, according to the instructions issued by the Government, in Letter No.12273/96-20, Public (Political Pension. 8. It had also been stated that, according to the instructions issued by the Government, in Letter No.12273/96-20, Public (Political Pension. II) Department, dated 13.01.1997, the petitioner should have completed 18 years of age at the time of conviction. The ration card furnished by the petitioner contains corrections. The petitioner has completed 13 years of age, at the time of his conviction, as per the Electoral Roll 1988 of Thally assembly constituency. In such circumstances, the District level screening committee had rejected the claim of the petitioner. According to the report of the District Level Screening Committee, the second respondent had recommended the claim of the petitioner for rejection, in Lr.No.K.Dis.60387/2002, dated:25.01.2003, to the first respondent. 9. It had also been stated that, based on the recommendation of the second respondent, for rejection, and the District Level Screening Committee report, the first respondent had rejected the claim of the petitioner, vide Government letter No.8476/2003-1, Public (PP.2) Department, Dated 30.04.2003. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the Writ Petition, before this Court, in W.P.No.21733 of 2003. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, in the said Writ Petition, a further opportunity had been given to the petitioner to prove his claims. However, it was found that the Record Sheets produced by the petitioner were not genuine. Discrepancies were found in the Co-prisoners certificates produced by the petitioner. Therefore, the request of the petitioner for the grant of State Freedom Fighters Pension, had been rejected, by the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.09.2010. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the first respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 30.09.2010, without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with regard to the genuineness of the record sheets produced by the Head Master of the school concerned, showing the Date of Birth of the petitioner. According to the Date of Birth, shown in the said record sheets, the petitioner had completed 18 years of age, at the time of his imprisonment. He had further submitted that no records had been produced, on behalf of the respondents, to show that the record sheets produced by the petitioner, before the first respondent, with regard to the age and the other particulars, are not genuine. He had further submitted that no records had been produced, on behalf of the respondents, to show that the record sheets produced by the petitioner, before the first respondent, with regard to the age and the other particulars, are not genuine. No enquiry had been conducted calling for explanation from the Head Master concerned, inspite of an order having been passed by this Court, on 29.03.2010, in W.P.No.21733 of 2003, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner, by giving him an opportunity to produce the necessary records, to prove his age and other qualifications for claiming the state Freedom Fighers pension. Such an opportunity had not been given by the respondents, before arriving at the conclusion that the records produced by the petitioner were not genuine in nature. Therefore, this Court may be pleased to direct the first respondent to pass an order, granting the State Freedom Fighters Pension to the petitioner, by setting aside the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.09.2010. 9. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had not been in a position to show that there are certain rules and regulations, which prescribe that the person requesting for the grant of State Freedom Fighters pension should have completed 18 years of age, at the time of his imprisonment. Even otherwise, nothing has been shown on behalf of the respondents to substantiate the claim that the record sheets, showing the date of birth of the petitioner and the other particulars, were not genuine in nature. Even if certain statements had been made by the Head Master of the school concerned, an enquiry ought to have been conducted, by the respondents, in respect of the genuineness of the record sheets, by giving an opportunity of hearing to him and to the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. However, no such enquiry is shown to have been conducted, by the respondents. 10. In Gurdial Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in(2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 8, the Apex Court has held as follows: "6.The Scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. 10. In Gurdial Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in(2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 8, the Apex Court has held as follows: "6.The Scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. It has to be kept in mind that millions of masses of this country had participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any scheme at the relevant time. It has also to be kept in mind that in the partition of the country most of the citizens who suffered imprisonment were handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. The problem of getting the record from a foreign country is very cumbersome and expensive. Keeping in mind the object of the Scheme, the authorities concerned are required that in appreciating the Scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rational and not a technical approach is required to be adopted. It has also to be kept in mind that the claimants of the Scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their life for the country." 11. In view of the above said circumstances and as the petitioner is nearing 90 years of age, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to grant the State Freedom Fighters pension, to the petitioner, from the date of his application, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.