JUDGMENT 1. Initially, the petitioner herein filed this writ petition assailing Lr.No.112/6197/97-FF(HC)(A), dated 04.08.2006 of the first respondent herein, suspending the Freedom Fighters Pension for the petitioner and to set aside the guideline (b) in Do.Lr.No.8/12/90 FF(P), dated 02.07.1998, of the first respondent herein, which enables consideration of age on the basis of voters list as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. While ordering Rule nisi, this Court in W.P.M.P.No.3466/2009 on 03.07.2009, passed an interim order, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.12.2008 and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The first respondent by virtue of an order in Lr.No.52/CC/25/2009-FF(HC), dated 21.04.2009, cancelled the pension granted earlier and by virtue of Lr.No.52/CC/25/2009-FF(HC) dated 28.10.2009, the first respondent reaffirmed the same during the pendency of the writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner herein, he fought against Nizam Government for the merger of Hyderabad State into Indian Union and made an application for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension and the same was assigned File No.112/6197/97-FF(HC)A and was placed before the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee in the year 1997 and the said committee recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension. The State Government, after verification, as per the policy of the Union of India, recommended for the same and basing on which, the first respondent issued preliminary pension sanction vide Lr.No.112/6197/97-FF(HC) A, dated 29.07.2003, calling for descriptive rolls and accordingly the petitioner herein submitted all the required documents and descriptive rolls to the first respondent and the first respondent granted pension with effect from 15.07.2003 in favour of the petitioner vide Lr.No.112/6197/97-FF(HC)(A), dated 04.11.2003. The first respondent vide Lr.No.112/6197/97-FF(HC)(A), dated 04.08.2006 suspended the freedom fighters pension. Questioning the same, petitioner herein filed W.P.No.20246/2006 on 29.06.2006 and initially on 27.12.2006 interim order was granted by this Court and subsequently the same was vacated and the said W.P.No.20246/2006 was dismissed by this Court on 01.03.2007. Subsequently, while narrating further developments, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition, seeking suspension of the order dated 04.08.2006 and subsequently this Court granted permission to question the order of cancellation dated 21.04.2009 as confirmed in the letter dated 28.10.2009 of the first respondent. 4. Subsequently, while narrating further developments, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition, seeking suspension of the order dated 04.08.2006 and subsequently this Court granted permission to question the order of cancellation dated 21.04.2009 as confirmed in the letter dated 28.10.2009 of the first respondent. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is averred that the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide letter dated 29.06.2006 reported that on receipt of a complaint regarding the claim of the petitioner to be a freedom fighter, an enquiry was conducted by the District Collector, Khammam and recommended for cancellation of the pension sanctioned earlier in favour of the petitioner herein. It is further stated in the said counter affidavit that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent on 04.08.2006 to explain as to why the pension should not be cancelled and reply was given by the petitioner herein on 03.10.2006. 5. Heard Sri K.Chinna Baba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Adhi Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the Union of India and perused the material available on record. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that simply basing on the letter addressed by the State Government and without any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the first respondent passed the impugned orders of suspension and thereafter cancellation. 7. It is further contended that earlier basing on the report submitted by the State Government after through verification, the first respondent granted pension in favour of the petitioner herein as long back as in the year 2003. It is further submitted that without issuing any notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein, the second respondent herein recommended for cancellation and simply basing on the same, the first respondent cancelled the pension granted in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee after thoroughly verifying the particulars. It is further contended that when other evidence is available on record, determination of age of the petitioner based on the voters list is arbitrary and irrational. It is also argued that the petitioner herein did not submit any voters list as stated in the impugned order. 8. It is further contended that when other evidence is available on record, determination of age of the petitioner based on the voters list is arbitrary and irrational. It is also argued that the petitioner herein did not submit any voters list as stated in the impugned order. 8. Per contra, it is contended by Sri Adhi Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Union of India that the orders of suspension and the orders of cancellation issued by the first respondent herein are perfectly legal and in accordance with the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (hereinafter called ‘ the Scheme’). 9. In the light of the pleadings, submissions and contentions and the material available on record, now the issue which this Court is called upon to deal with is whether the impugned orders are sustainable in the eye of law? 10. The Government of India introduced the Scheme with the laudable and sacred object and intention of safeguarding the interests of the freedom fighters who sacrificed their wealth, health and young age for liberating the country from the shackles of feudal and colonial forces and also with an intention of enabling the freedom fighters to get over from the financial constraints in the evening of their lives which they are exposed to because of their sacrifices during the freedom struggle. The said benefit is undoubtedly not a charity nor a gratis and in the considered opinion of this Court it is a right conferred on them in recognition of the sacrifices made by them for our nation. Therefore, the State and its functionaries are required and obligated to adopt a pragmatic and practical approach, but not a hyper technical one, an approach based on assumptions and presumptions. 11. Therefore, the State and its functionaries are required and obligated to adopt a pragmatic and practical approach, but not a hyper technical one, an approach based on assumptions and presumptions. 11. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of GURDIAL SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2001) 8 SCC 8 ) and KAMALABAI SINKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (2012) 11 SCC 754) and this Court in BOMMAKANTI VENKAVVA v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( 2013 (5) ALD 173 ) wherein the Hon’ble apex Court and this Court categorically held that the standard of proof required is not the same as is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of parties and should be on the basis of preponderance of probabilities but not on the touch stone of its probabilities beyond reasonable doubt. 12. In the present case, the first respondent herein granted freedom fighters pension for the petitioner herein with effect from 15.07.2003 vide Lr.No.112/6197/97-FF(HC)(A), dated 04.11.2003. Basing on a letter addressed by the State Government, obviously, without being proceeded by any enquiry, the first respondent/Government of India, while asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why the pension should not be cancelled, vide Lr.No.112/6197/97-FF(HC) (A), dated 04.08.2006 suspended the pension. In fact, the petitioner herein submitted an explanation dated 03.10.2006 in response to the said show-cause notice issued by the first respondent, pleading total ignorance with regard to the alleged complaint and the contents of the same. Obviously, basing on the letters of the first respondent herein, the first respondent herein initiated the action and passed the impugned cancellation order vide Lr.No.52/CC/25/2009-FF (HC), dated 21.04.2009 and further orders dated 28.09.2009, confirming the same. It is significant to note at this juncture that simply basing on a complaint made by a third party, the State Government recommended for cancellation to the Central Government without holding any enquiry on the allegations made in the complaint. Obviously, after recognizing the said mistake, the District Collector, Khammam, by virtue of a notice in Rc.No.C6/1582/06, dated 02.12.2006 asked the petitioner herein to appear before the District Revenue Officer/Nodal Officer on 07.11.2006 along with explanation. The petitioner herein on 07.12.2006 submitted an explanation in response to the said notice. Obviously, after recognizing the said mistake, the District Collector, Khammam, by virtue of a notice in Rc.No.C6/1582/06, dated 02.12.2006 asked the petitioner herein to appear before the District Revenue Officer/Nodal Officer on 07.11.2006 along with explanation. The petitioner herein on 07.12.2006 submitted an explanation in response to the said notice. Subsequently, vide notice in Rc.No.C6/979/07, dated 05.03.2008, the District Revenue Officer, Khammam, asked the petitioner herein to appear before the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department on 10.03.2008 for enquiry and as per the petitioner herein, he appeared before the first respondent/Government of Andhra Pradesh on the even date, but no final orders have been passed so far. The above narration manifestly discloses that the second respondent/Government of Andhra Pradesh without issuing notice and without holding any enquiry and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein, recommended for cancellation to the Government of India and simply basing on the said recommendations, the Union of India passed the impugned orders. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said action on the part of the respondent authorities is highly preposterous and reprehensible and cannot stand for the judicial scrutiny. Evidently, after recognizing their mistake, the State authorities initiated enquiry and as per the petitioner herein no final orders have been passed in the said enquiry. 13. Even though, this Court ordered Rule Nisi as long back as on 13.02.20009, no counter has been filed by the second respondent/State Government. An order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17340/2005 dated 22.02.2013 is placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein this Court held that it would not be proper to take the age mentioned in the voter identity card as the sole criteria and in the said Judgment this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of GURDIAL SINGH (supra 1). In the case of GURDIAL SINGH (supra 1), the Hon’ble apex Court at paragraphs 6 to 8, held as follows: “6. The scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. It has to be kept in mind that millions of masses of this country had participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any scheme at the relevant time. The scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. It has to be kept in mind that millions of masses of this country had participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any scheme at the relevant time. It has also to be kept in mind that in the partition of the country most of citizens who suffered imprisonment were handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. The problem of getting the record from the foreign country is very cumbersome and expensive. Keeping in mind the object of the scheme, the concerned authorities are required that in appreciating the scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rationale and not a technical approach is required to be adopted. It has also to be kept in mind that the claimants of the scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their life for the country. This Court in MukandLal Bhandari's case (supra) observed: "The object in making the said relaxation was not to reward or compensate the sacrifices made in the freedom struggle. The object was to honour and where it was necessary, also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact, many of those who do not have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it, since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with which they plunged in the Freedom Struggle. The spirit of the Scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind of a programme of compensation. Yet that may be the result if the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever the date the application is made. The scheme should retain its high objective with which it was motivated. It should not further be forgotten that now its benefit is made available irrespective of the income limit. Yet that may be the result if the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever the date the application is made. The scheme should retain its high objective with which it was motivated. It should not further be forgotten that now its benefit is made available irrespective of the income limit. Secondly, and this is equally important to note, since we are by this decision making the benefit of the scheme available irrespective of the date on which the application is made, it would not be advisable to extend the benefit retrospectively. Lastly, the pension under the present Scheme is not the only benefit made available to the freedom fighters of their dependents. The preference in employment, allotment of accommodation and in admission to schools and colleges of their kith and kin etc., are also the other benefits which have been made available to them for quite sometime now." The court categorically mentioned that the pension under the scheme should be made payable from the date on which the application is made whether it is accompanied by necessary proof of eligibility or not. 7. The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As the object of the scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by scheme have suffered for the country about half a century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the scheme. The case of the claimants under this scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touch-stone of the test of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The case of the claimants under this scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touch-stone of the test of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence. 8. We have noticed with disgust that the respondent Authorities have adopted a hyper-technical approach while dealing with the case of a freedom fighter and ignored the basic principles/objectives of the scheme intended to give the benefit to the sufferers in the freedom movement. The contradictions and discrepancies, as noticed hereinabove, cannot be held to be material which could be made the basis of depriving the appellant of his right to get the pension. The case of the appellant has been disposed of by ignoring the mandate of law and the Scheme. The impugned order also appears to have been passed with a biased and close mind completely ignoring the verdict of this Court in MukundLal Bhandari's case. We further feel that after granting the pension of the appellant, the respondents were not justified to reject his claim on the basis of material which already existed, justifying the grant of pension in his favour. The appellant has, unnecessarily, been dragged to litigation for no fault of his. This High Court has completely ignored its earlier judgments in CWP No. 3790 of 1994 entitled Mohan Singh vs. Union of India decided on 1.6.1995 and CWP 14442 of 1995 decided on 11.12.1995.” In the case of KAMALABAI SINKAR (supra 2), the Hon’ble apex Court at paragraph 10, held as under: “10. A perusal of the documents enclosed by the Appellant's husband along with his application disclose that the Appellant's husband made out a case for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension under the category "Underground Freedom Fighter". Applying the broad principles laid down in the decision of this Court in GurdialSingh (supra), it will have to be held that there was nothing more for the State to examine to honour the claim of the Appellant's husband for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension. Applying the broad principles laid down in the decision of this Court in GurdialSingh (supra), it will have to be held that there was nothing more for the State to examine to honour the claim of the Appellant's husband for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension. The claim of the Appellant's husband cannot be held to be a fraudulent one or without any supporting material.” In the case of BOMMAKANTI VENKAVVA (supra 3), this Court, at paragraph 4, held as under: “4. The grievance of the petitioner, which I find is rightful, is that the rejection of her application by respondent No. 1 is not only casual but also without proper application of mind. As rightly pleaded by the petitioner, the policy guidelines, dated 10-09-2009, which I have carefully perused, have nowhere laid down that if a person, who issued the Personal Knowledge Certificate (PK Certificate), dies by the time of consideration of the application for sanction of pension, the applicant has to obtain a fresh PK Certificate from somebody else. If this reasoning is accepted, freedom fighters' pension can never be granted even to a bonafide freedom fighter or his widow, if by the time his/her application is considered, the person, who has issued the PK Certificate, was not alive. Such an approach apart from being irrational is wholly is not as if respondent No. 1 has examined genuineness of the PKC issued by the deceased co-freedom fighter i.e. Donakonda Gopal Reddy and that therefore, the necessity for the petitioner to obtain a fresh PKC from another freedom fighter has arisen. The petitioner being 79 years of old lady and the widow of a person, who was stated to have been a freedom fighter, cannot be made to suffer the unnecessary ordeals due to the patently arbitrary approach of respondent No. 1. The insistence on production of a fresh PK Certificate as a condition for considering the petitioner's application does not stand scrutiny of this Court as such a condition is totally extraneous to the very Scheme and also the guidelines on which respondent No. 1 has placed reliance for rejection of the petitioner's application. Having framed the Scheme for honouring the freedom fighters in recognition of their selfless services for liberation of the State of Hyderabad, the State cannot meet out a raw deal to the genuine freedom fighters and their widows. Having framed the Scheme for honouring the freedom fighters in recognition of their selfless services for liberation of the State of Hyderabad, the State cannot meet out a raw deal to the genuine freedom fighters and their widows. The petitioner, who has obviously drained of her energies at this advanced age, is not expected to fight the legal battle round after round. It is time that respondent No. 1 treats the applicants with respect, rationality and reasonableness instead of rejecting the applications on jejune grounds.” 14. From a reading of the principle laid down in the above referred judgments, it would be absolutely clear that while dealing with the claims pertaining to the freedom fighters a rational and pragmatic approach is required to be adopted by the authorities. In the instant case, without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein to enable him to disprove the allegations alleged to have been made in the complaint by a third party, the second respondent recommended for cancellation and the first respondent, having acted upon the same, cancelled the freedom fighters pension granted in favour of the petitioner after holding through enquiry earlier. 15. Since the enquiry initiated against the petitioner herein by the second respondent State authorities pursuant to the notice in Rc.No.C6/1582/06, dated 02.12.2006 has not attained any finality, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would not be open for the respondents herein to cancel the freedom fighters pension granted in favour of the petitioner herein earlier after through verification and recommendation of the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee. 16. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court and this Court in the above referred judgments, writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders in Lr.No.112/6197/97-FF(HC)(A), dated 04.08.2006 and the consequential impugned orders in Lr.No.52/CC/25/2009-FF(HC), dated 21.04.2009 and 28.10.2009, are set aside and consequently the first respondent is directed to continue to pay freedom fighters pension to the petitioner herein in terms of the Lr.No.112/6197/97-FF(HC)(A), dated 04.11.2003, issued by the first respondent herein. It is also made clear that the petitioner herein is also entitled for arrears of pension from 04.08.2006 to till date and the respondents are directed to pay the said arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. It is also made clear that the petitioner herein is also entitled for arrears of pension from 04.08.2006 to till date and the respondents are directed to pay the said arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petition, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.