Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. 1. The case of the petitioner is that her husband took part in the Quit India Movement. Her husband was arrested and remanded to judicial custody at Bellary Jail, from 1942 to 1943. The first respondent, in order to honour the persons, who participated and sacrificed their lives for the Country, granted pension to the Freedom Fighters and after their lifetime to their dependants. The petitioner, being the wife of freedom fighter, applied for sanction of Swadantrata Sainik Samman Pension. The second respondent granted Freedom Fighter Pension, by proceedings, dated 02.07.1981. During the lifetime of her husband, he made several requests for sanction of Central Government Pension. However, the same was not granted. In the meanwhile, her husband passed away, on 21.04.2008, at the age of 87 years. Thereafter, the second respondent, by his proceedings, dated 05.01.2009, passed an order, enabling the petitioner to receive pension. However, the second respondent has not recommended the case of the petitioner for sanction of pension. Thereafter, on 19.02.2011, the petitioner made a request to the second respondent to recommend her case for grant of Central Government Freedom Fighter Pension. Since the second respondent has not forwarded the request of the petitioner to the first respondent for grant of pension, the petitioner filed WP (MD) No. 3446 of 2011. 2. This Court, by order, dated 24.03.2011, directed the second respondent to forward the representation of the petitioner, along with proposal, to the first respondent and on receipt of such representation, the first respondent was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the impugned order, dated 04.07.2011, stating that the petitioner has not furnished certificate from any Co-prisoner and also non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC) in support of her claim for dependant family pension. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward to file the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was receiving State Freedom Fighter Pension, from the year 1981 onwards, based on the recommendation of Late Mr. P. Kakkan, Freedom Fighter. The petitioner, in support of her contention, also enclosed a copy of the certificate, dated 16.07.1978, issued by Mr. P. Kakkan, who was a co-prisoner of her husband. P. Kakkan, Freedom Fighter. The petitioner, in support of her contention, also enclosed a copy of the certificate, dated 16.07.1978, issued by Mr. P. Kakkan, who was a co-prisoner of her husband. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, makes reliance upon an order of this Court in A. Gopal Mudaliyar vs. Government of India, WP No. 19377 of 2002, dated 30.01.2004. 4. The respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavits, submit that as the petitioner has not produced the documents sought for by the respondents, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected, which does not require any interference by this Court. 5. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully. 6. Admittedly, during the lifetime of the husband of the petitioner, he was receiving Freedom Fighter Pension, in pursuance of the proceedings, dated 02.07.1981, issued by the second respondent. The husband of the petitioner made several requests before the second respondent seeking to recommend his case for Central Government Pension. He died on 21.04.2008, leaving behind the petitioner, who is aged about 68 years. In this regard, the petitioner also made several requests. But, her request was not acceded to, in spite of a direction issued by this Court, WP (MD) No. 3446 of 2011, dated 24.03.2011. 7. This Court, in A. Gopal Mudaliyar vs. Government of India, WP No. 19377 of 2002, dated 30.01.2004, considered the similar issue and held as follows:- "7. Keeping in view of the sentiments expressed in the aforesaid Supreme Court decisions as well as in the decisions of the Madras High Court and keeping in view that such matters are to be considered liberally and not as on obstacle race, the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be examined. From the order passed by the Central Government, it is apparent that the petitioner has furnished the certificate from co-prisoner and from the report of the concerned Police Station, it is apparent that records are not available and yet it has been observed in the impugned order that the petitioner has not submitted any valid non-availability of record certificate from the State. The first respondent has obviously not applied his mind to the other materials on records, viz., recommendation given by the District Level Committee. The first respondent has obviously not applied his mind to the other materials on records, viz., recommendation given by the District Level Committee. He has also not considered the fact that the State Government has duly recommended for grant of freedom fighters pension. After going through the order passed by the Central Government, one can only conclude that it can take a very hyper technical view of the matter and entire effort seems to find out loopholes with a view to reject the application. " 8. Following the said Judgment, I am of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, the impugned order, dated 04.07.2011, passed by the first respondent, is quashed and a direction is issued to the second respondent to recommend the case of the petitioner to the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such recommendation from the second respondent, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, sanctioning Swadantrata Sainik Samman Pension to the petitioner within a period of two weeks therefrom. 9. The Writ Petition is allowed, as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.