Judgment : 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings, dated 29.06.2006, issued by the 2nd respondent, in Letter No.1864/FF-II/A2/A2/2006, with a consequential direction to the respondents to sanction the freedom fighters’ pension under the ‘Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980’. 2. The petitioner, who is aged about 72 years, states in the affidavit that he was a freedom fighter as he had participated in the freedom struggle against Nizams for liberation of Hyderabad State and Goa from Portuguese. It is stated that at a young age, inspired and attracted by the call given by the freedom fighters, he had participated in the Hyderabad Liberation struggle and did his best for liberation of Hyderabad State. 3. During the Silver Jubilee year of independence, a central scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and their eligible dependants was introduced by the Government of India with effect from 15th August 1972. The said scheme was further liberalized and re-named as ‘Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980’ and is made effective from 1st August 1980. As per the said scheme, all the persons who had participated in the freedom movement in some way or the other, are not eligible for pension, but only certain categories of freedom fighters, who fit into the criteria notified, are eligible for grant of pension under the above said scheme. Petitioner had been making applications for grant of above said pension from 1997 onwards, and though the recommendations are in his favour for grant of pension, he is deprived of the pension only on the ground that he was below 15 years of age at the time of freedom struggle, as such, as per the guidelines, his case was not considered. 4. When the petitioner has submitted his representation, inquiries were conducted and the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad District, has addressed a letter, dated 4th December 2002 in letter No.D5/1520/1999, to the Secretary to Government, Revenue (FF.II) Department. In the aforesaid letter, it is stated that though the petitioner was aged below 15 years, as he was inspired by patriotism and Nationalism, jumped into the freedom struggle and risked his life and he was also presented a banner as a best Cadet Corp on 27th January 1958 by Late Sri Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Former Prime Minister of India. In the aforesaid letter, it is stated that though the petitioner was aged below 15 years, as he was inspired by patriotism and Nationalism, jumped into the freedom struggle and risked his life and he was also presented a banner as a best Cadet Corp on 27th January 1958 by Late Sri Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Former Prime Minister of India. In the aforesaid letter, it is also stated that on the occasion of Golden Jubilee Celebrations of Hyderabad liberation, held on 17th September 1998, Sri L.K.Adwani, the Hon’ble Home Minister, Government of India, has honoured the petitioner as a patriot and freedom fighter and presented him a memento with a citation in his honour as a recognition of his active participation in Hyderabad Liberation struggle. While stating that the petitioner has participated in the freedom struggle against the Nizam’s Feudal during the period from 15th August 1947 to September 1948 and also participated in Goa Liberation Struggle in 1955, recommended for grant of pension by relaxing the age restriction. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that there is no such restriction of age in the scheme, but in view of the guidelines issued by the respondents, though there is an overwhelming evidence in support of his participation in freedom struggle for liberation of Hyderabad State and Goa from Portuguese, he is deprived of pension on untenable grounds. 5. Respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, while giving the salient features of the scheme in detail and denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is categorically stated that the Central scheme per se does not prescribe any minimum age limit for being eligible for grant of Samman Pension. However, it is unlikely that any person, who was a minor at relevant time, would have been imprisoned or faced with a warrant of arrest. Therefore, consideration of the age of applicant is implicit in the conditions of eligibility prescribed under the scheme. It is stated that in the claims pertaining to the cases recommended by the Committee headed by Sri Ch. Rajeshwar Rao in 1998, as a matter of requisite administrative appropriateness, an age of 15 years as in March 1947, was fixed in June 1998 as one of the conditions to examine such claims for grant of freedom fighters pension. It is stated that in the claims pertaining to the cases recommended by the Committee headed by Sri Ch. Rajeshwar Rao in 1998, as a matter of requisite administrative appropriateness, an age of 15 years as in March 1947, was fixed in June 1998 as one of the conditions to examine such claims for grant of freedom fighters pension. It is stated that the claim of the petitioner would be considered in the light of the aforesaid condition, and decision would be taken. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, while referring to the report of the Collector, Hyderabad District, without disputing the participation of petitioner in the freedom struggle, it is stated that the claim of the petitioner is rejected for sanction of freedom fighters’ pension, on the ground that he had not attained the age of 15 years in March 1947. 7. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the 2nd respondent. 8. It is contended by Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has participated in the freedom struggle for liberation of Hyderabad and also Goa liberation movement from Portuguese, as such, he is entitled for grant of freedom fighters’ pension. It is submitted that in the absence of any restriction on age in the scheme notified by the Government, it is not open for the respondents to reject the claim of petitioner without recommending it to the Central Government merely on the ground that he was below the age of 15 years in March 1947. The learned counsel, in support of his argument, has placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Choudhuri Nayak (2010) 8 SCC 796 . 9. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Solicitor General and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents that in view of large number of false claims, certain guidelines are fixed for grant of freedom fighters’ pension, and in that view of the matter, though there is evidence to show that the petitioner has participated in the freedom struggle, his claim is rejected as he was below 15 years of age in March 1947. 10. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the salient features of the scheme. Initially, the scheme for grant of freedom fighters’ pension was introduced in the year 1972 i.e. in the Silver Jubilee year of independence, and subsequently, a liberalized pension scheme is introduced in 1990, which is called as ‘Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980’. In the said scheme, there is no restriction as such, with regard to the minimum age for grant of freedom fighters’ pension. It appears, when there were certain complaints with regard to false claims, against the cases recommended by Sri Ch.Rajeshwar Rao Committee, the Committee which was constituted for scrutinizing the applications, it was decided in 1998 to get the genuineness of all the cases verified by the State Government. For the purpose of screening the false claims, the 1st respondent-Central Government appears to have instructed the State Governments to insist for production of certificates to show that the claimants were not below the age of 15 years at the time of Hyderabad Liberation Movement. A copy of such letter addressed by the Government of India is also placed on record and I have perused the same. In this case, from the proceedings of the District Collector, Hyderabad and the earlier recommendations made by the 2nd respondent-Government in Letter No.371/83/FF.II-A(1)/2003-1, dated 19th May 2004, referring to various documentary evidence, it is clear that the 2nd respondent-Government has also recommended the case of petitioner for grant of pension, stating that such claim is genuine one. When the claim was again referred for re-verification, only on the ground that the petitioner was aged below 15 years in March 1947, his claim is rejected. 11. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of State of Orissa (1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while referring to the earlier case law on the subject in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari Vs. Union of India (1993 Supp (3) SCC 2), while referring to the object of the freedom fighters’ pension scheme, reiterated the criteria to be adopted to consider the claims under the scheme. In the aforesaid judgment, it is categorically held that the criteria for grant of pension under the scheme is not age, but participation in the freedom struggle. Union of India (1993 Supp (3) SCC 2), while referring to the object of the freedom fighters’ pension scheme, reiterated the criteria to be adopted to consider the claims under the scheme. In the aforesaid judgment, it is categorically held that the criteria for grant of pension under the scheme is not age, but participation in the freedom struggle. The freedom fighters’ pension can, therefore, in exceptional cases, be granted even to those who were minors at the time of struggle, if evidence clearly showed that they had participated in the freedom struggle and fulfilled the recommendations of the scheme. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court fully supports the case of the petitioner having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case also, it is to be noticed that the participation of petitioner in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement is not at all in dispute. When reports were called for on the application filed by the petitioner, in clear terms, the Collector, Hyderabad District in Letter No.D5/1520/1999, dated 4th December 2002, addressed to the Government, had clearly stated that the petitioner is eligible for grant of freedom fighters’ pension, and hence, recommended his case for grant of such pension. Even on earlier occasion, when the matter was considered by the State Government having regard to the recommendations made by the District Collector, the State Government has also made a specific recommendation to the 1st respondent-Union of India that the petitioner is entitled for pension and that the claim of the petitioner is genuine. In that view of the matter, when the participation of petitioner in freedom struggle and his fitness into the scheme itself is not in dispute, he cannot be deprived of freedom fighters’ pension. It appears, when there were large number of false claims, based on the recommendations made by the Committee headed by Sri Ch.Rajeshwar Rao, the Government of India, as an extra measure, has addressed the State Government and also has prescribed certain guidelines including the age factor, for the purpose of screening genuine claims. It appears, when there were large number of false claims, based on the recommendations made by the Committee headed by Sri Ch.Rajeshwar Rao, the Government of India, as an extra measure, has addressed the State Government and also has prescribed certain guidelines including the age factor, for the purpose of screening genuine claims. But, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, in exceptional cases where the participation of claimant is abundantly proved, it is not open for the respondents to reject the claim of such claimant merely on the ground that he was below the age of 15 years, so as to deprive such a patriotic person, of pension under the scheme. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned letter, dated 29th June 2006, addressed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.18649/FF-II/A2/A2/2006, to the 1st respondent, and all other proceedings rejecting the claim of the petitioner for sanction of freedom fighters’ pension, are hereby quashed, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to send its recommendations to the 1st respondent within a period of two months from today as per the scheme, without reference to the objection that the petitioner was aged below 15 years at the time of freedom struggle. On receipt of such recommendations from the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent is directed to forthwith consider the claim of petitioner for grant of pension and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of recommendations from the 2nd respondent-State Government. 13.Writ petition is allowed with the directions as indicated above. No order as to costs.