ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the action of the respondents in not restoring Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the same to the petitioner with effect from 3.2.1998. 2. Pending the Writ Petition, the sole petitioner passed away and this Court vide order dated 8.12.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.483 of 2008 permitted the wife of the petitioner Smt.Sarikonda Hanumayamma to come on record as legal representative of the deceased petitioner. 3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is as under: 3.1 The petitioner, Sri Sarikonda Pandu Raju was a Freedom Fighter, who participated in the struggle against erstwhile Nizam Government for liberation of Hyderabad during the years 1947-48 and he went underground and joined Peddaram camp, Tiruvur Taluq, Krishna District. 3.2 Petitioner made an application on 10.2.1986 for grant of Pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short the Scheme). When there was inaction on the part of the respondents, petitioner along with certain others filed W.P.No.5417 of 1988 and the same was allowed on 31.3.1995, directing the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee and the Deputy Secretary (FFD), Home Affairs, New Delhi to consider their applications. Thereafter, petitioner filed C.C.No.495 of 1996 and this Court on 14.6.1996 directed the respondents to consider the application within one month. Pursuant to the same, petitioners application was placed in the agenda of Hyderabad Special Screening Committee and thereafter pension was sanctioned on 10.2.1997 with effect from 10.2.1986. 3.3 Petitioner made an application on 6.2.1991 for a certified copy of arrest warrant as all other genuine freedom fighters were submitting copies of the arrest warrants to the Government. The Court of the Principal District Munsif, Khammam issued a certified copy of the arrest warrant and the petitioner made a representation to Government of A.P. forwarding the certified copy of the arrest warrant and the Collector, Khammam, basing on the report of the Revenue Divisional Authority and the District and Sessions Judge, Khammam, forwarded the petitioners application to Government of A.P. vide Lr.No.53264/FF.1(A2)/92-2 dated 19.5.1993. 3.4 To the utter shock of the petitioner, the petitioners pension was suspended vide order dated 3.2.1998. 3.4 To the utter shock of the petitioner, the petitioners pension was suspended vide order dated 3.2.1998. Petitioner filed W.P.No.18543 of 1998 and by way of judgment dated 12.6.2000 the said orders were quashed and this Court further directed the Government to give opportunity to the petitioner. On 4.11.2004, 1st respondent issued a notice and the petitioner gave a reply also. 3.5 Challenging the inaction and failure to restore the pension, despite passage of considerable length of time, the present Writ Petition has been instituted. This Court, issued rule nisi on 8.6.2007. On 15.4.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.15752 of 2006 interim direction was granted by this Court directing the 1st respondent herein to pay pension to the petitioner regularly. 4. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents herein denying the averments made in the writ affidavit and in the direction of justifying the impugned action. 5. Contentions/submissions of Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for petitioner 5.1. The action of the respondents in not restoring the family pension is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 5.2. This Court in W.P.No.18543 of 1998 set aside the cancellation order dated 8.1.1999. 5.3. Till date the report of the District and Sessions Judge is not furnished as directed by this Court vide order in W.P.No.18543 of 1998. 5.4. In view of letters of Revenue Divisional Officer dated 17.2.2001 and District Revenue Officer dated 28.11.2002, no further enquiry is needed and the pension is liable to be restored from 3.2.1998. 5.5. In view of the death of the petitioner on 15.1.2007, no further enquiry is permissible. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for petitioner places reliance on the judgments in R.Ramaiah v. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India & another and Kesireddy Ramachandra Reddy v. Union of India rep. by its Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. 6. Contentions/submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondents 6.1. The action of the respondents is strictly in conformity with the clauses in the scheme. 6.2. There is no cause of action for the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition. 7. In the light of the pleadings, submissions and contentions, the issue which this Court is called upon to answer is - Whether there is justification on the part of the Respondents in not restoring the Freedom Fighters pension in favour of the petitioner. 8. There is no cause of action for the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition. 7. In the light of the pleadings, submissions and contentions, the issue which this Court is called upon to answer is - Whether there is justification on the part of the Respondents in not restoring the Freedom Fighters pension in favour of the petitioner. 8. The Government of India, with a laudable and sacred object of protecting and safeguarding the freedom fighters who sacrificed their valuable lives, health, wealth and young age from the onslaught of the financial constraints which they are exposed to because of their sacrifices in the struggle to liberate our country from the clutches and shackles of feudal and colonial forces, introduced Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said benefit conferred on the freedom fighters is neither a charity nor a gratis and on the other hand it is a right created under this holy scheme. Therefore, the authorities entrusted with the functions under the scheme are required to address the claims in an expeditious manner and are also required to adopt a pragmatic approach while dealing with such claims. 9. Reverting to the controversy in the present Writ Petition, the application of the petitioner submitted on 10.2.1986 was considered after a decade and pension was sanctioned only after filing the writ petition followed by a contempt case on 10.2.1997. Within a year i.e. on 3.2.1998 the said pension was suspended. The 1st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 5.2.1998 alleging manipulation of underground suffering document. In response to the same, petitioner herein submitted an explanation on 3.3.1998 and the 1st respondent vide proceedings No.F112/780/87-FF(HC) dated 8.1.1999 cancelled the freedom fighters pension. 10. Assailing the said cancellation order, petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.18543 of 1998 and by way of an order dated 12.6.2000, the said writ petition was allowed and the operative portion of the said order reads as under: Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8.1.1999 is set aside. But it does not preclude the Central Government from giving opportunity to the petitioner by furnishing the copy of the report or the letter of the Sessions Judge dated 22.7.1997 and after calling for the remarks or representation from the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with rules. 11. But it does not preclude the Central Government from giving opportunity to the petitioner by furnishing the copy of the report or the letter of the Sessions Judge dated 22.7.1997 and after calling for the remarks or representation from the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with rules. 11. After a lapse of 4 years, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 3.11.2004 peculiarly raising for the first time an objection with regard to age. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted an elaborate explanation dated 16.11.2004, specifically denying all the allegations made against him. Inaction thereafter has compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that despite the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.18543 of 1998, the respondents herein did not furnish the report of the District and Sessions Judge and the said aspect is not seriously disputed by the respondents herein. It is significant to refer to the letter Rc.No.C4/2184/97 dated 2.5.2001 and letter D.Dis.No.C4/1062/2001 dated 24.11.2001 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam to the District Collector, Khammam and letter Rc.No.C6/(M)/3082/97 dated 28.11.2002 addressed by the District Collector, Khammam to the Secretary to Government, Revenue (FF-I) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. It would be very much manifest from the letter dated 2.5.2001 that one of the signatories to the complaint namely Yachavarapu Varada Reddy appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 23.4.2001 and deposed a sworn statement that he had no knowledge of English language and persons standing at Serial Nos.2 and 3 (co-complainants) brought the said complaint informing that the said paper pertains to the request for additional benefits and obtained his signatures and that he was not informed that it was a complaint against Sarikonda Pandu Raju. It is also clear from the said letter that the said Yachavarapu Varada Reddy further stated that the petitioner herein participated in the freedom movement along with them and got sanctioned pension earlier to the co-complainants and thus, to take revenge, they made false complaint against the petitioner herein and that without knowing such developments between them, he sent the paper written in English and that at the time of movement, the petitioner was approximately aged 25 years. The letter dated 24.11.2001 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam to the District Collector further discloses that on the instructions of the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer visited the village on 20.11.2001 and conducted local enquiry. In the said letter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, further confirmed the complaint against the petitioner herein as a false one and it would not deserve any further probe in view of death of two individuals who signed the complaint. The letter dated 28.11.2002 addressed by the District Collector to the Secretary to Government also confirms the same. The Principal Secretary, State Government also addressed a letter on 17.7.2003 to the Government of India. Yet another ground taken by the respondents in the show cause notice dated 3.11.2004 with regard to the age of the petitioner herein. As per the respondents, the age of the petitioner at the time of struggle was 15 years, as such, he suffered ineligibility. 12. The above objection taken by the respondents for the first time in the show cause notice dated 3.11.2004 cannot be a ground for denying the benefit under the Scheme in view of the law laid down by this Court in R.Ramaiah v. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India & another (1 supra). In the said judgment, this Court while placing reliance on the judgment in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India , at paragraph 11 held as under: 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. 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 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. 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. 13. As observed earlier, in the instant case also, there are categoric and clear recommendations of the revenue authorities at the State level and the State Government in favour of the petitioner herein. 13. As observed earlier, in the instant case also, there are categoric and clear recommendations of the revenue authorities at the State level and the State Government in favour of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the benefit under the Scheme cannot be denied to the petitioner herein on the basis of unreasonable and tenuous grounds. It is also relevant to note that in Kamlabai Sinkar v. State of Maharashtra and Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and others , the Honble Supreme Court categorically held that the stand of proof applicable while dealing with the aspect of participation in the freedom movement shall be on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, but not on the touchstone of the test of beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Another significant aspect, which has impact on the adjudication of the issue in the present writ petition is the death of the petitioner herein pending the writ petition. In the opinion of this Court, now the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner herein, in the absence of the petitioner by any stretch of imagination cannot be continued further. The widow of the petitioner herein who is now aged 80 years and who is in the evening of her life is praying this Court for recognition of her husband as a freedom fighter, unfortunately. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to permit the respondents herein to proceed further with the matter. It is to be noted that pursuant to the interim orders granted by this Court, the respondent authorities started paying pension to the petitioner from April, 2009. 15. In view of the above reasons, the petitioner herein is entitled not only for payment of pension during her lifetime, but also entitled to receive the pension from the date of suspension of pension on 3.2.1998 till March 2009. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed declaring the proceedings against Sri Sarikonda Pandu Raju as abated. It is further directed that the respondents herein shall continue to pay the freedom fighters pension in favour of the wife of Sri Sarikonda Pandu Raju i.e. Smt.Sarikonda Hanumayamma during her lifetime. It is also made clear that the respondents herein shall pay arrears of pension from February 1998 to April 2009 in favour of the petitioner herein. It is further directed that the respondents herein shall continue to pay the freedom fighters pension in favour of the wife of Sri Sarikonda Pandu Raju i.e. Smt.Sarikonda Hanumayamma during her lifetime. It is also made clear that the respondents herein shall pay arrears of pension from February 1998 to April 2009 in favour of the petitioner herein. The said amount shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order with interest at 6% per annum. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.