JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral) - Petitioner-Sukhan Devi, wife of late NK Mahant Singh, son of Chunnu, has filed the instant writ petition for grant of freedom fighter pension under Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, 1972 on the ground that her husband, who had jointed British Army on 27th February, 1934, was discharged from the service on 30th May, 1946 being a member of Indian National Army (INA). She has placed on record photocopy of Certificate of Service (Annexure P1) and affidavit, dated 9th June, 2010, swornin by one Lal Singh (Annexure P4), who is drawing regular pension as well as INA pension, stating therein that husband of petitioner had served with him in Indian National Army. 2. In reply to the petition, it has categorically been stated that, though, the petitioner has mentioned her husband''s name as No. 9843 N.K. Mahant Singh in the writ petition, but, as per record/documents submitted by petitioner with writ petition, her husband''s name is Mahant Ram, s/o Chunnu of District Hamirpur, H.P. 3. It has further been stated in the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 on the affidavit of Mr. S.N. Burman, the then Director, Freedom Fighters Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi, that as per computerized register''s list of rejected cases in the Ministry, the case of the petitioner''s husband, i.e. Mahant Ram s/o Chunnu was earlier considered and his claim was rejected by the Ministry in the year 1976. The said reject list has also been placed on record as Annexure R1 with the reply. It has also been stated in the reply that after issuance of rejection letter, no further evidence/documents have been provided by the petitioner through State Government so that her case may be reconsidered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the rejection list (Annexure R1), case of Lal Singh, s/o Gusaoun Rajput, resident of Village Baroti, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, has also been shown to have been rejected in the year 1975 whereas from Annexure P4, an affidavit swornin by the said Lal Singh, it is evident that he is in receipt of INA pension, which indicates that by later point of time, his case was reconsidered and he was awarded INA pension. Therefore, she contended that case of the petitioner also requires re-consideration. 5. Therefore, she contended that case of the petitioner also requires re-consideration. 5. In view of the stand of respondents that after issuance of the rejection letter, no fresh evidence/documents were provided by the petitioner through State Government so that her case might be reconsidered, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner shall be satisfied in case she is permitted to submit her case afresh with comprehensive details and documents including the affidavit of aforesaid Lal Singh to the concerned authority through State Government for re-consideration. 6. Having glance of the above discussion, present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to represent her case to the concerned authority through proper channel provided under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, 1972 or any other relevant scheme applicable to her through State Government within six weeks from today. The said representation/application shall be considered by the State Government within four weeks thereafter and shall be transmitted to the concerned/competent authority of respondent No. 1 for consideration, which shall be considered and decided by the said authority within six weeks thereafter. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.