Judgment : 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition to issue a writ in the nature of declaration, declaring that the orders of the Respondents in rejecting the petitioner claim for Tamilnadu State Freedom Fighters Pension on the ground that he did not attain the age of 18 years when he was in jail during May, 1945 to December 1945 as illegal and unsustainable and for consequential direction to the respondents to sanction and pay the petitioner Tamilnadu State Freedom Fighters Monthly Pension every month with effect from 09.02.2004 together with arrears, interest and other consequential benefits. 2. The facts in brief which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are:-The father and forefathers of the petitioner were native of Trichy District in Tamil Nadu. During the British Rule, his father moved to Burma and settled at 1910. The petitioner was born on 1924. The petitioner joined as a member of Indian Independence League which is also known as Indian National Army, shortly INA which was constituted and started by the renowned freedom fighter Shri.Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose in the Far East and he was attached to Kumbe Branch, Rangoon, Burma of the INA. He played a significant rule in the fight put up by INA against the British Rule and the British Army. He also served as a Propagandist and War Fund Raiser under the Chairmanship of Shri.C.S.Naidu. He served in the said branch/until he was arrested by the British Army Force. After the arrest, he was put and imprisoned in Rangoon Central Jail from May 1945 to December 1945 for more than 6 months. 3. During 1961 to 1964 there was a large scale insurgency and local civil war between various groups in Burma. Therefore, almost all the Tamil people who have settled in Burma including the family of the petitioner have returned to India as Burma Refugee. 4. The Government of India took various rehabilitation measures for all Burma Repatriates and Refugees. Initially they were at Madurai, Thiruparankundram Refugee Camp. Then we moved to Chennai in search of livelihood. The Government of India as well as the Government of Tamilnadu framed schemes for paying monthly pension to the freedom fighters like the petitioner not only to honour them for their sacrifice and service during the freedom struggle and movement but also to support them financially to sustain their livelihood and family. 5. The Government of India as well as the Government of Tamilnadu framed schemes for paying monthly pension to the freedom fighters like the petitioner not only to honour them for their sacrifice and service during the freedom struggle and movement but also to support them financially to sustain their livelihood and family. 5. The petitioner along with his applications produced various certificates and documents to prove and establish that he was a Burma Repatriate and also a freedom fighter. He produced a certificate dated 31.12.1986 issued by All India INA Committee that he was a member of the INA and that he was a political sufferer. Similarly, he produced a certificate from a renowned and well known freedom fighter Dr.(Col.) Lakshmi Sehgal, INA dated 28.02.2006. He also produced co-prisoners certificates from two freedom fighters namely N.Soosaimuthu ad Thiru.A.Joseph who were also arrested by the British Forces and who were also imprisoned like the petitioner during May 1945 to December 1945 in Rangoon Central Jail and who are recipient of freedom fighters pension. He produced age certificate from the civil surgeon, Government Hospital, Tondiarpet, Chennai-81 fixing his age as 83 as on 17.09.2010. He also produced identity card issued by the Election Commission of India and also the photocopy of family card. He also produced the certificate issued by All Burma Tamilian Association dated 23.10.1964. 6. After continuous and repeated representations, the District Collector, Thiruvallur has called for reports from the Tahsildar, Ambattur by his various letters and proceedings with regard to his age proof and as to whether the co-prisoners certificates were issued by recipient of Central Government Freedom Fighters Pension, etc., during 1999 to 2004. The Government during the year 2005 by a letter dated 15.07.2005 asked the District Collector, Thiruvalur to enquire the issue through the District Committee and submit a report to them with regard to the claim of the petitioner for Freedom Fighters Pension. The District Collector Thiruvallur in his letter dated 04.03.2013, based on the reports received from the RDO and Tahsildars recommended to the Government to the effect that he could be sanctioned state Freedom Fighters Pension subject to the rules in this regard. 7. The District Collector Thiruvallur in his letter dated 04.03.2013, based on the reports received from the RDO and Tahsildars recommended to the Government to the effect that he could be sanctioned state Freedom Fighters Pension subject to the rules in this regard. 7. However, the District Collector, Thiruvallur by the impugned order dated 31.06.2013 informed that the Government of Tamilnadu has rejected his request for the state freedom fighters pension on the ground that as per the age mentioned in the family card, he had not completed 18 years of age during the period in which he was imprisoned. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. No counter has been filed by the respondents. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner has proved that he was actually in imprisonment and this fact has also been admitted by the respondents, the reason assigned by the second respondent that the petitioner was minor at the time of imprisonment will not be a ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for freedom fighter's pension, whereas the petitioner is entitled for freedom fighter's pension. Hence, he prays that the writ petition has to be allowed. 11. From the perusal of the order it is seen that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that during 1945 while the petitioner was in imprisonment, he was a minor. This will not be a ground for denial of his right as the petitioner has proved his imprisonment and the same has also been admitted by the respondent. Hence, I am of the view that the the petitioner is legally entitled for freedom fighter's pension and as such the impugned order of rejection passed by the respondents is liable to be set aside. Before passing such order, the respondent ought to have seen that the freedom fighters should not be deprived of and driven from pillar to post merely for the technicalities. Before passing such order, the respondent ought to have seen that the freedom fighters should not be deprived of and driven from pillar to post merely for the technicalities. Once the Government is very kind enough to sanction pension to freedom fighters as a policy decision, it is painful to see that the respondent has passed the order of rejection without even knowing the policy decision of the Government, merely on the technicalities. 12. Considering these circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the order of rejection passed by the second respondent 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of rejection passed by the second respondent is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass considerable orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is a case where imposition of severe costs of Rupees one lakh against the 2nd respondent for depriving of the freedom fighter as if they are giving money from their own pocket. However, still considering the circumstances, to give one more opportunity, the second respondent is directed to look into the matter meticulously and pass suitable orders to reach the goal of the Government. No costs.