Order : 1. The petitioner’s father – Late Thakur Ghanshyam Singh claimed Freedom Fighter Pension for having participated in the freedom fighter movement particularly in the movement of 1942 and Quit India Movement. He was duly recognized as Freedom Fighter by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 2.2.1998; and late Thakur Ghanshyam Singh was granted pension of Rs.1,250/- per month. He submitted declaration form, in which petitioner’s name was also included as his dependent in the statutory proforma submitted to the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. Unfortunately, petitioner’s father expired on 24.06.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is unmarried daughter of Late Thakur Ghanshyam Singh and who is covered under the definition of Rule 2(A) of the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (henceforth ‘Rules, 1972’), has made an application for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension and other benefits under the Rules. The said application was enquired by the Competent Authority through Collector, Raipur and on 15.10.1999 a report was sent by the Collector, Raipur to the State Government holding her to be dependent daughter of the deceased Freedom Fighter, but the State Government did not take any decision on the report submitted by the Collector, Raipur. 3. The petitioner preferred writ petition there-against. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1704/2005 filed by the petitioner, the State Government has passed order on 23.08.2005 holding that though the petitioner’s father was granted Freedom Fighter Pension but in view of second proviso to Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1972, the petitioner is not entitled for Freedom Fighter Pension. 4. Feeling aggrieved & dissatisfied with the decision so rendered by the State Government, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the same. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the State Government has failed to take into consideration the clarification memo dated 06.09.1995 issued by the then State Government (erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh), in which it has been clarified that after the death of Freedom Fighter, his dependent unmarried daughter is also held to be entitled for Freedom Fighter Pension till her marriage and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Govt. 6. On the other hand, Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate would oppose the writ petition and support the impugned order and submit that the petitioner is not entitled for the freedom fighter pension and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made therein and also gone through the record available with utmost circumspection. 8. At the outset, it must be noted that the principle behind giving pension and other emoluments to the Freedom Fighter or his son or his daughter by the Government is that on account of involvement of Freedom Fighter in the freedom movement, their children had suffered prejudice and incurred disabilities and to overcome such prejudice or difficulties, such a pension is being given to Freedom Fighters or their children. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father was declared Freedom Fighter by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh as he has participated in the Quit India Movement and he was also granted Freedom Fighter Pension under the Rules, 1972 but he expired on 24.06.1999 and her unmarried daughter claimed Freedom Fighter Pension as per the applicable rules. The matter was enquired by the State Government through Collector, Raipur and the Collector had given categorical finding that since the petitioner, who is unmarried daughter of the deceased Freedom Fighter, is dependent on the deceased Freedom Fighter, therefore, she is entitled/eligible for Freedom Fighter Pension, but the State Government has rejected the same holding that once the Freedom Fighter has been granted Freedom Fighter Pension and he expired, then the unmarried daughter is not entitled for Freedom Fighter Pension. 10. 10. The State Government, vide its order dated 23.08.2005 while rejecting the application has recorded the following findings, which state as under:- ^^ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds ikyu esa izdj.k ds fof/kd ijh{k.k ls ;g fu"d"kZ fudyk gS] fd vki Lora=rk laxzke ds ßifjokjÞ esa vfookfgr iq=h gksus ds dkj.k Lo-Jh pkSgku ds ifjokj esa 'kkfey vo'; gksrh gS] fdUrq Lora=rk laxzke lSfud lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 1972 ¼fnukad 1@7@89 rd la'kksf/kr½ ds fu;e 3¼1½¼[k½ ds v/khu ßifjokjÞ ds lnL; ds :i esa vki mDr jkf'k rHkh izkIr djus dh gdnkj gksrh] tc vkids firk }kjk mDr jkf'k ugha yh xbZ gksrh vkSj Lora=rk laxzke ds nkSjku ;k vU;Fkk os dkydofyr gq, gksrs A Lo- Bkdqj Jh ?ku';ke flag pkSgku dks mDr lEeku fuf/k fu;e 3¼1½¼d½ ds f}rh; ijUrqd ds v/khu] mudh e`R;q i'pkr~ mudh fo/kok iRuh ek= gh isa'ku ikus dh ik=rk j[krh Fkh] vkSj pwafd mudh iRuh iwoZ esa gh LoxZoklh gks pqdh gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vkidks mDr isa'ku dh ik=rk ugha jg tkrhA fu;e 3¼1½ d ,oa [k ds izko/kkuksa ls Li"V gS fd lEeku fuf/k Lora=rk laxzke lSfud dks ns; gksxk fdUrq ;fn isa'ku Lohd`fr vkns'k ds fnukad dks Lora=rk laxzke lSfud e`r gks pqds gksa rks muds ifjokj ds lnL; dks lEeku fuf/k ¼isa'ku½ Lohd`r fd;k tk ldrk A vr% vki Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh ds ifjokj ds lnL; gksus dh n'kk esa Hkh fu;e 3¼1½ f}rh; ijarqd ds izko/kku ds QyLo:i mDr lEeku fuf/k ikus dh ik=rk ugha j[krhA fu;e esa ßfirkÞ dh e`R;q i'pkr~ mudh iRuh dks NksM+ ifjokj ds fdlh vU; lnL; dks mDr fuf/k gLrkarfjr dh tk;sxh ,slh dksbZ O;oLFkk ugha gSA mYysf[kr fLFkfr esa mDr lEeku fuf/k vkidks Lohdkj fd;k tkuk fu;ekuqdqy ugha gksxkA vr% vkids }kjk izLrqr vkosnu i= fnukad 19@05@2005 iw.kZ fopkjksijkar vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA** 11. After promulgation of the Rules, clarification of the Rules has been issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh on 6.9.1995. After promulgation of the Rules, clarification of the Rules has been issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh on 6.9.1995. Paragraph No. 2 is relevant for the present purpose, which is being reproduced as under:- ^^¼2½ vkfJr fo/kok lnL; dks muds thoui;ZUr vFkok iqufoZokg gksus rd mlesa tks Hkh igys gks] izpfyr nj ls jkT; lEeku fuf/k dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk ldsxkA vkfJr vfookfgr iqf=;ksa dks csjkstxkj gksus dh n'kk esa muds fookg gksus rd izpfyr nj ls ¼,d ls vf/kd vkfJr vfookfgr iqf=;ksa dh n'kk esa] e`r Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh dks izkIr jkf'k cjkcj foHkkftr dj½ nh tk ldsxhA** 12. A careful perusal of the aforesaid clarification would show that petitioner being the dependent unmarried daughter of freedom fighter is clearly entitled for the Freedom Fighter Pension till her marriage and this fact has been ignored by the State Government while passing the impugned order. Thus, it is held that petitioner is entitled for Freedom Fighter Pension as per Rule 2 of the order dated 6.9.1995 till her marriage. 13. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the State Government is directed to grant Freedom Fighter Pension from the date of petitioner’s entitlement till her marriage and pay the arrears amount of the Freedom Fighter Pension within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order along with interest @ 8% per annum till the date of actual payment. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.