JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner’s husband was a subject of erstwhile State of Bilaspur. He participated in Prajamandal movement. Object of the Prajamandal movement was to achieve independence and also to get merger of princely States into the Indian Union. Petitioner’s husband also took part in the Satyagrah. He was externed by Raja Bilaspur by verbal orders. He remained externed from September 1946 to October 1948. Government of India framed a scheme viz. Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme, 1972. It was further liberalized in 1980. Till 31.8.1980, the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 was admissible only to those, who were in need of financial assistance on account of their meager annual gross income. Annual salary of Rs.5,000/- was enforced for eligibility for pension. However, fact of the matter is that with effect from 1st August, 1980 benefit of pension was extended to all the freedom fighters as a token of respect (Samman). Petitioner’s husband submitted application for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension in the year 1983 under the Scheme of 1972. It was rejected on 16.3.1983 only on the ground that application was submitted after the cut-off date i.e. 31.3.1982. Petitioner made a representation on 18.3.2002 seeking freedom fighters’ pension. Petitioner was advised on 5.4.2002 to submit application after completing all the codal formalities. Thereafter, petitioner again made a representation on 30.1.2004 and she was informed on 9.3.2004 (annexure P-3) to complete all the codal formalities and sent the application to the Government of India. Petitioner submitted application. No decision was taken upon the same. Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of CWP No. 1373/2005. Respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner by way of order dated 5.9.2007. Case of the petitioner was rejected on 12.12.2007. Petitioner filed another petition being CWP No. 828/2008. It was rejected by this Court on 16.12.2011. Petitioner filed an LPA against Judgment dated 16.12.2011 being LPA No. 341/2012. It was disposed of on 13.6.2013. Respondent No. 1 rejected the case of the petitioner on 8.8.2013 though the State Government vide communication dated 11.7.2013 has forwarded the case of the petitioner (at page 53 of the paper-book). Petitioner filed yet another petition being CWP No. 2749/2014. It was disposed of on 17.3.2015. Case of the petitioner was rejected again on 22.4.2015 vide annexure P-9. 2. Respondent No. 1 rejected the case of the petitioner on 8.8.2013 though the State Government vide communication dated 11.7.2013 has forwarded the case of the petitioner (at page 53 of the paper-book). Petitioner filed yet another petition being CWP No. 2749/2014. It was disposed of on 17.3.2015. Case of the petitioner was rejected again on 22.4.2015 vide annexure P-9. 2. According to para-3(b) of the Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, a person who remained underground for more than 6 months provided that he was a proclaimed offender or one on whom an award for arrest /head was announced or one for whose detention order was issued but not served or a person interned in his home or externed from his District provided the period of internment/ externment was six months or more was eligible to apply for the pension. Mode of submission of application has been provided in para-5 of the Scheme. Para-7 of the Scheme reads as under: “7. HOW TO PROVE THE CLAIMS (EVIDENCE REQUIRED) The applicant should furnish the documents indicated below whichever is applicable. (a) IMPRISONMENT /DETENTION ETC. Certificate from the concerned jail authorities, District Magistrate or the State Government in case of non-availability of such certificates co-prisoner certificates from a sitting MP or MLA or Ex-MP or ex-MLA specifying the jail period (Annexure –I in the application form.) (b) REMAINED UNDERGROUND (i) Documentary evidence by way of Court’s/Government orders proclaiming the applicant as an offender, announcing an award on his head, or for his arrest or ordering his detention. (ii) Certificates from veteran freedom fighters who had themselves undergone imprisonment for five years or more if the official records are not forthcoming due to their non-availability. (c) INTERNMENT OR EXTERNMENT (i) Order of internment or externment or any other corroboratory documentary evidence. (ii) Certificates from prominent freedom fighters who had themselves undergone imprisonment for five years or more if the official records are not available. (Annexure –II in the application.) Note:- The Certifier veteran freedom fighters in respect of underground suffering, internment/externment and the applicant should belong to the same administrative unit before the reorganization of States and their area of operation must be the same. 3. Issue of sanction order is provided in para-8. (Annexure –II in the application.) Note:- The Certifier veteran freedom fighters in respect of underground suffering, internment/externment and the applicant should belong to the same administrative unit before the reorganization of States and their area of operation must be the same. 3. Issue of sanction order is provided in para-8. Claim of the petitioner, as per this para is to be scrutinized by the State Government/ UT in consultation with State Advisory Committee on the basis of copy of application submitted to them. After receipt of State verification and entitlement to pension report, the claim of the applicant is scrutinized and if found eligible, pension is granted. 4. Para-3 of CMP No. 10898/2015, filed by the respondent-Union of India is reproduced as under: “3. That it is respectfully submitted at this stage that the SSS Pension Scheme, 1980, provides that a person who had suffered minimum imprisonment of six months (3 months in case of women and SC/ST freedom fighters) on account of his participation in freedom struggle is eligible for pension subject to furnishing of the following evidences: - Primary evidence:- Imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned jail authority, District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release. Secondary evidence: - In case official records of the relevant period are not available, secondary evidence in the form of 2 co-prisoner certificates (CPC) from central freedom fighter pensioners who have proven jail suffering of minimum 1 year and who were with the applicant in the same jail could be considered provided the State Government/ Union Territory Administration concerned, after due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certifies that documentary evidences from the official records in support of the claimed sufferings are not available. In case the co-prisoner was a sitting or Ex-MP/MLA, only one certificate from the State Government certifying non-availability of documentary evidence from official records is called Non-availability of record Certificate (NARC), and is issued as per guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the prescribed manner. 5. In case the co-prisoner was a sitting or Ex-MP/MLA, only one certificate from the State Government certifying non-availability of documentary evidence from official records is called Non-availability of record Certificate (NARC), and is issued as per guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the prescribed manner. 5. It will be apt at this stage to reproduce the entire text of circular No. 14/77 issued by respondent No. 1 on 12th August, 1977 under caption “Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972- State Verification reports regarding”:- “In continuation of Circular No. 3/76, dated 12.1.1976, it is again emphasized that no Central Pension should be sanctioned in future except on the basis of State Government’s verification and recommendation. In case no State Report has been received, the case should be referred to the State Government and finalized only on the basis of their specific recommendations.” 6. Petitioner’s husband has been recognized as freedom fighter by the State of Himachal Pradesh. He was getting regular freedom fighter pension from the State Government. In the year 1983, petitioner’s husband submitted an application, it was rejected on technical ground on 16.3.1983 that application was not received on or before 31.3.1982. Respondent No. 1 should have been alive to the situation that it was dealing with the case of a freedom fighter. Petitioner has been repeatedly called upon to submit documents. Petitioner had been complying with all the directions issued by respondents No.1 and 2, by furnishing documents as per the scheme. 7. Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur has issued certificate, annexure P-4 certifying therein that the petitioner’s husband was declared freedom fighter vide letter dated 21.5.1996. Shri Sukh Ram and Shri Bhagat Ram, who were getting freedom fighter pension have certified vide annexure P-6 and annexure P-7, respectively, that petitioner’s husband was externed from 1946 to 1948. Petitioner’s husband was externed for a period of more than two years though requirement as per Scheme is only 6 months. State Government has already forwarded the case of the petitioner and same ought to have been considered by respondent No. 1 in the letter and spirit of the scheme. The fact that petitioner’s case has been recommended by the State Government presupposes that all the formalities required under the Scheme have been completed coupled with the fact that petitioner’s husband has been declared freedom fighter on 21.5.1996 by the State Government. The fact that petitioner’s case has been recommended by the State Government presupposes that all the formalities required under the Scheme have been completed coupled with the fact that petitioner’s husband has been declared freedom fighter on 21.5.1996 by the State Government. Name of the petitioner’s husband also finds mention in annexure P-5 published by the Art and Culture Department of Himachal Pradesh. 8. According to the Scheme, an applicant can substantiate claim either by way of internment/externment order or documentary evidence and certificates from prominent freedom fighters, who have suffered internment/externment for two years, if the official records are not available. Petitioner has corroborated her case by furnishing certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur coupled with the fact that husband of petitioner was declared freedom fighter by the State Government. She has annexed certificate issued by prominent freedom fighters Shri Sukh Ram and Shri Bhagat Ram, who have undergone imprisonment for more than two years. Court can take judicial note of the fact that erstwhile Rajas used to issue verbal orders and it was impossible for the petitioner to get the same due to non-availability of record. It is the case where the principle of lex non cogit ad impossibilia would apply. 9. Orders passed by Rajas used to be verbal so there could not be any record available that is why clause has been incorporated in the scheme that the claim can be corroborated with the help of other evidence including certificates from prominent freedom fighters. This has been done to give due respect to the persons who have been granted freedom fighter pension by the Government of India to enable them to give certificate to fellow freedom fighters. 10. We have also quoted para-3 of the application filed by respondent-Union of India whereby it is provided that the applicant could furnish primary evidence as well as secondary evidence. Secondary evidence is in the form of co-prisoners’ certificate from central freedom fighters, who have proven jail suffering of minimum 1 year and who were with the applicant in the same jail could be considered provided the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned after due verification of the claim and its genuineness certifies that the documentary evidence from the official record in support of the claimed sufferings are not available. In case, co-prisoner was a sitting or Ex-MP/MLA, only one certificate in place of two is required. In case, co-prisoner was a sitting or Ex-MP/MLA, only one certificate in place of two is required. Thus, though as per Scheme imprisonment suffered by the co-prisoner for two year but as per these instructions, it is only one year. 11. Case of the petitioner as per order dated 22.4.2015 has been rejected only on the ground that petitioner in her application has not mentioned the date and period of suffering of late husband nor has mentioned the name of freedom movement in which he had participated. Petitioner’s husband was externed from September 1946 to October 1948. He has participated in Satyagrah and also in Prajamandal movement. This fact was within the knowledge of the respondent No.1. Second ground on which case has been rejected is that petitioner has not provided any documentary evidence from official records about her husband’s externment. We have taken notice that the orders passed by Rajas were verbal that is why provision has been made for secondary evidence in the form of two co-prisoners certificates from the persons who have been awarded pension by the Central Government. Certificates annexure P-6 and P-7 have been issued by the persons belonging to the same administrative unit i.e. District Bilaspur and their area of operation was also Bilaspur. 12. Third ground is that petitioner has not produced valid Personal Knowledge Certificates in support of claimed suffering of her late husband alongwith a valid Non-availability of Records Certificates (NARC) from the concerned authority i.e. State Government. State Government, as per directions issued by this Court in previous litigation has already recommended the case of the petitioner. The fact that the case of the petitioner has been recommended/ forwarded by respondent No. 2-Union of India presupposes that State was satisfied with the averments contained in the application coupled with the fact that non-availability certificate was not required in this case. 13. Last ground stated in the impugned order dated 22.4.2015 as stated is that the State Government has not recommended the case for grant of pension to the Ministry. State Government has recommended/ forwarded case of the petitioner as directed by this Court coupled with the fact that petitioner’s husband was getting freedom fighter pension from the State Government. Grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension by the State Government is important indicator to determine whether the candidate is entitled to freedom fighter pension from the Central Government or not. 14. State Government has recommended/ forwarded case of the petitioner as directed by this Court coupled with the fact that petitioner’s husband was getting freedom fighter pension from the State Government. Grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension by the State Government is important indicator to determine whether the candidate is entitled to freedom fighter pension from the Central Government or not. 14. We are of the considered view that the petitioner fulfills the requirement of Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 as discussed herein above. Petitioner’s husband has been declared freedom fighter by the State Government, on the basis of recommendations made by Sub Committee constituted by the State Government. Forwarding of the case by the State Government to the respondent No. 1 has not been viewed in right perspective by respondent No. 1. Respondent No.1 should adopt sensitive and liberal approach while dealing with the cases of freedom fighters, their widows and dependants. In the present case, petitioner is 85 years old and her case has been repeatedly rejected on technical grounds. 15. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-9 dated 22.4.2015 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to grant freedom fighter pension to the petitioner with effect from 16.3.1983 with interest @ 9% per annum, within a period of 8 weeks from today, on receipt of a certified copy of judgment. Petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of Rs.2000/-.