Judgment :- S. Vimala, J. Mrs. N. Sinna Pillai, the eligible dependant of martyr Mr.K.S.Natesan applied for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980. The Second Appellant herein, by proceedings dated 16.09.2005, rejected the request for pension to her. She filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3360 of 2006 and the learned Single Judge granted the request of the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the Government is in Appeal in the above case. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:- The husband of the respondent herein K.S.Natesan was a freedom fighter. He joined Indian National Army on 25.11.1943 as a Sipoy No.850 at Selitor Camp in Singapore. On 15.08.1945, he was arrested by the British Forces and he was imprisoned at Kualalampur Camp Jail / Detention Camp till the end of February 1946. 3. K. S. Natesan applied for Freedom Fighter's Pension on 10.07.1968 from the Government of Tamil Nadu, . After due enquiry, the Government of Tamil Nadu ordered sanction of pension on 08.08.1969 honouring his services in the Indian National Army. 4. On 28.07.1980, K.S.Natesan applied to the Union Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi / second appellant herein seeking Freedom Fighters Pension from the Central Revenue under the Scheme. As per the eligibility requirement, he also submitted two Certificates of co-prisoners, certifying his imprisonment for more than six months. While the application was under process, on 13.01.1995 he passed away. 5. Thereafter, the persistent and fervent request made by the respondent herein was rejected by the second appellant herein by the proceedings dated 16.09.2005, on the ground that the eligibility certificate issued by the co-prisoner suffered from certain short comings. The said order was challenged in the writ petition. 6. On notice, the appellants herein has filed a counter affidavit, stating therein that the respondent herein had not produced either the primary evidence in the form of a jail certificate nor the acceptable secondary evidence from an eligible co-prisoner in support of her claim. 7. On consideration of the rival claims, the learned Single Judge, placing reliance upon the decisions reported in GURDIAL SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( 2001 (8) S.C.C. 8 ) and also MUKUND LAL BHANDARI's case(1993 SUPP (3) S.C.C. 2) granted the request of the respondent herein. 8. 7. On consideration of the rival claims, the learned Single Judge, placing reliance upon the decisions reported in GURDIAL SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( 2001 (8) S.C.C. 8 ) and also MUKUND LAL BHANDARI's case(1993 SUPP (3) S.C.C. 2) granted the request of the respondent herein. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants could not deny the fact that the co-prisoners were awarded the relief under the said scheme. 9. It is not in dispute that the husband of the respondent herein has suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country. In order to become eligible for the grant of pension, the following two eligibility criteria ought to have been fulfilled:- (1) The applicant should have suffered imprisonment for six months or more; (2) To prove such imprisonment, certificate either from the concerned jail authority / District Magistrate or from State Government indicating the period of sentence and in case if the official records are not available, certificates from two co-prisoners who have suffered a minimum one year imprisonment, should be produced. 10. It is the case of the respondent's husband that he suffered imprisonment from April 1945 to February 1946. In order to prove the detention, he produced co-prisoners certificates from a prisoner who suffered imprisonment for six and half months,and not for one year as required. 11. The question to be decided is when the co-prisoner who issued the certificate did not suffer imprisonment for the eligibility period of one year or more, what is the validity of the certificate issued by them? In other words, whether the condition prescribing that the co-prisoner should have suffered one year should be taken as directory or mandatory? What is the standard of proof that is expected in such kind of cases? Whether it is proof beyond reasonable doubt or mere preponderance of probability? 12. Considering the difficulties of prisoners, who have languished in foreign jails, the difficulties in getting certificate from foreign country and also considering the object of the Scheme, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the standard of proof must be only preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. 13. 12. Considering the difficulties of prisoners, who have languished in foreign jails, the difficulties in getting certificate from foreign country and also considering the object of the Scheme, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the standard of proof must be only preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also pointed out that when the object of the scheme is to honor and mitigate the suffering who have given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical approach has to be adopted while determining the case of a person seeking pension. 14. It is also pointed out that the persons intended to be covered by the scheme has suffered for the country about half century back and during those time they have not expected any reward while suffering imprisonment. 15. The certificates produced by the husband of the respondent herein go to show that he is a genuine freedom fighter. It is imperative that genuine freedom fighter is to be treated with reverence, respect and honour. 16. The learned Single Judge has taken into account the object of the Scheme, the practical difficulties involved in getting the certificate and has come to a right conclusion that the request of grant of pension by the respondent deserves to be allowed. 17. Therefore, unhesitatingly, we concur with the order of the learned Single Judge and there is nothing on record to show that the order of the learned Single Judge is incorrect. We find no merits in this Writ Appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.