Judgment 1. Challenging Exts.P8, P9 and P11 orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for pension under the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, the petitioner has come up before this Court. 2. According to the petitioner, he was an active worker of the Travancore State Congress during freedom struggle and he was arrested and convicted for organizing a procession in Kanjirappally. He underwent imprisonment for 8 months in Trivandrum Central Jail from 25.12.1121 to 5.9.1122 ME; it is alleged. 3. As the petitioner felt that he is entitled for pension as a freedom fighter under the aforesaid scheme, he made application for the same with the available records to prove his claim. 4. The petitioner's grievance is that on an erroneous appreciation of evidence, respondents 1 and 2 passed the impugned orders rejecting the claim. Thus, he has come up before this Court. 5. The stand taken by the State Government in the counter affidavit is that the Superintendent of Jail, Thiruvananthapuram could not trace out the records relating to the imprisonment of the petitioner as the same has been destroyed. 6. It was further averred in the counter that it was not clear from the documents produced by the petitioner that whether he has undergone imprisonment for more than 6 months. They would contend that in case of non-availability of prison records, the applicant ought to have produced non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC) and in this case, necessary documents to prove his involvement in freedom struggle or imprisonment has not been produced in spite of giving ample chances. 7. They further contended that the documents submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to sustain his claim. 8. The Central Government along with their counter affidavit has filed the scheme which is marked as Ext.R3(a). They took the stand that as regards the sufficiency of the proof, the scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced before the Government and the petitioner failed to produce primary evidence to substantiate his claim which should have been verified by the State Government of Kerala. Therefore, according to them, in the absence of primary evidence, the petitioner could have submitted a Non Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) issued by the State Government along with two co-prisoner certificates who have undergone a jail suffering for one year. 9. Therefore, according to them, in the absence of primary evidence, the petitioner could have submitted a Non Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) issued by the State Government along with two co-prisoner certificates who have undergone a jail suffering for one year. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. 10. The petitioner's case is that he along with others were tried before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponkunnam in C.C.No.381 of 1121ME and he as well as others were found guilty and on 24.12.1121 ME, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- with a default sentence of two months. 11. According to the petitioner, he along with others were taken to Central Prison Poojappura on 25.12.1121 M.E. and they underwent imprisonment for 8 months. 12. As envisaged in Ext.R3(a) scheme, the petitioner produced certificates from the co- prisoners to prove his imprisonment in the central prison. The certificate was issued by Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan Thampi who was a well known freedom fighter and former speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. Ext.P2 is the certificate so issued by him. The extracts from the jail records could not be produced because on enquiry, the same was found destroyed. 13. As the petitioner was informed by Ext.P2 (a) communication that his application for pension has been rejected, he again filed an application for pension before respondents 1 and 3 vide Ext.P3. Along with Ext.P3, the petitioner produced a copy of certificate from R.Sankaranarayanan Thampi. The conviction details furnished by the Superintendent of the Central prison, Thiruvananthapuram (Ext.P4), True extract of conviction register of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram of co-prisoner K.J.Sebastian (Ext.P5) and a certificate from Smt.Rosamma Punnoose, Ex.MLA showing that the petitioner underwent eight months rigorous imprisonment at the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram (Ext.P6) were also produced by the petitioner. Smt. Rosamma Punnoose also issued a personal knowledge certificate relating to the petitioner on 20.2.2010, a copy of which is marked as Ext.P7. 14. There cannot be any doubt that Smt.Rosamma Punnoose was a well known freedom fighter of the erstwhile Travancore State. Ext.P7 certificate shows that she has undergone imprisonment for more than 2 years in the freedom struggle. She later became a member of the Kerala legislative Assembly. 14. There cannot be any doubt that Smt.Rosamma Punnoose was a well known freedom fighter of the erstwhile Travancore State. Ext.P7 certificate shows that she has undergone imprisonment for more than 2 years in the freedom struggle. She later became a member of the Kerala legislative Assembly. This, according to the Court, is sufficient to satisfy the conditions specified in Ext.R3(a) scheme. It appears from the impugned orders that the contents of Exts.P5 and P7 have escaped the notice of the authorities concerned at the time when the impugned order was passed. Though the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the co-prisoner certificate was not in the form, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.R3(a) scheme does not prescribe for any particular form. 15. On a consideration of the entire matters now placed on board, this Court is of the definite view that the petitioner is entitled to be recommended by the State Government for pension under the aforesaid scheme. "Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Exts.P8, P9 and P11 are quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to recommend the case of the petitioner for pension to the third respondent under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The third respondent on receipt of the same shall pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To facilitate an early disposal, formal recommendations along with the application shall be fixed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It shall be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before the third respondent within a period of one month from today.