JUDGMENT : K.N.Phaneendra, J. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and we have carefully perused the orders passed by the learned Single Judge impugned in this intra Court appeal. 2. Brief factual matrix of the case emanate from the records are that: The first respondent claiming that, he had participated in Hyderabad Liberation Movement and in various other movements of the Country and also worked under 'Shibiradhipati' who in turn issued an affidavit to the said effect and further added to that, the first respondent was also convicted in connection with the said freedom movement for the offences punishable under Section 119 (7) and under Section 7 (1) (11) of Arms Act, Section 27 of Protection of Peace and Public Tranquility Act, Section 37 of the Country Defence Act and Section 7 of Criminal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. On the basis of the above facts, he has made an application for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension on 07.02.1990. The said application was processed and an endorsement appears to have been given that, his application will be considered, if the said application is accompanied with relevant records. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent has filed W.P.No.2124/1995 and the said petition was allowed on 15.06.1995 directing the appellant herein to consider and dispose of the said application for grant of pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 within a period of four months however, the State Government did not sent the report to the Central Government. 3. Again, it appears another writ petition was filed in W.P.No.12249/2007 and by an order dated 24.03.2008, it was held that the said report was already sent during the pendency of the writ petition and a direction was issued to consider the application for grant of pension sought for. However, the appellant herein has rejected the plea of the first respondent for grant of pension. However, the appellant herein has rejected the plea of the first respondent for grant of pension. Being aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent has filed another writ petition in W.P.No.80203/2010 and vide order dated 13.04.2015 this Court has categorically held that the petitioner therein is entitled for pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme with effect from filing of the petition i.e., from 13.01.2010 and a direction was issued that the said order shall be complied within period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The said order is questioned before this Court by way of filing this writ appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri S.S.Aspalli seriously contended that the writ Court has not properly considered the guidelines with reference to granting Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension and the salient features as formulated by the Government in the year 1980. It is the main contention of the appellant that, the first respondent has not produced any documents to show that, he actually undergone six months imprisonment as imposed by the criminal Court. He has also contended that, even the first respondent has not produced any material to show that he has participated in freedom struggle and undergone imprisonment for more than six months as proclaimed offender and even arrest warrant was issued against him and it was not served upon him. Therefore, none of the conditions as per the salient features of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme have been complied. The writ Court has not gone into these aspects however, considering that the first respondent has in fact convicted for a period of six months and holding that itself is sufficient and further he has participated in freedom movement during the year 1948 with regard to Hyderabad Liberation Movement and certificate was issued by his Shibiradhipati therefore, these documents are sufficient to hold that the first respondent is entitled for such pension. Therefore, the order passed in the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be quashed by allowing this appeal. 5. Per contra, Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that, though the writ Court has not considered the entire material on record but, the documents produced before the Court clearly disclose that the first respondent was convicted for the said offences, which is not disputed by the other side. 5. Per contra, Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that, though the writ Court has not considered the entire material on record but, the documents produced before the Court clearly disclose that the first respondent was convicted for the said offences, which is not disputed by the other side. However, the certified copy of the order of conviction has been placed before the Court and in fact the first respondent has undergone the said punishment a certificate was issued by Shibiradhipati, which is also produced before the writ Court and it clearly discloses that, he has participated in freedom movement. Therefore, considering all these things, the writ Court has properly appreciated the material and allowed the writ petition, which does not call for interference. 6. On the above said submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted a ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Manohar Lal and Another, (2002) 10 SCC 568 wherein, it is observed as under: "The Samman Pension Scheme was introduced during the silver jubilee year by the Government of India. Indeed it is a modification of the earlier scheme know as "the Freedom Fighters' Pensions Scheme of 1972'. From 01.08.1980, the benefit of the Samman Pension Scheme has been extended to all freedom fighters as a token of samman to them. The eligibility criterion to earn pension under the Samman Pension Scheme is that one should be a freedom fighter. For purposes of this Scheme a freedom fighter is defined in para 4 of the said clause. Clause (a) of para 4 which is relevant for our purpose, is quoted hereunder:- (a) A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before independence. However, ex-INA personnel will be eligible for pension if the imprisonment detention suffered by them was outside India." 7. He also relied upon another ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Appeal Case No.1915 of 2007 between Union of India vs. K. Indrasena Reddy and Anr, wherein the Apex Court has observed that "in order to claim pension under Clause 2.3 of the Salient Features of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, the person should be a proclaimed offender; or one on whom an award for arrest was announced; or one on whom detention, order was issued but not served. For that, necessary documents have to be produced before the Court in order to show that the said person come within the purview of the said definition." 8. The appellant's counsel submitted that none of the above said conditions are fulfilled in the particular case. Therefore, the writ Court has committed a serious error in passing the impugned order. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent Sri Ravi B. Patil also relied upon a ruling reported in (2001)8 SCC 8 wherein the Apex Court has observed in the following manner: "A. Determination of eligibility - Standard of proof required for, held, is not the same as is required in a criminal case. Case has to be adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of parties - Since the object of the Scheme is to honour, and to mitigate the sufferings of, the freedom fighters, a liberal and not a technical approach should be adopted - Hence, a claim under the Scheme should be determined on the basis of probabilities and not by applying the test of "beyond reasonable doubt". 10. On meaningful understanding of the above said decisions, we are of the opinion that the claim under the Scheme should be determined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not applying the test of beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, looking to the object of the said Scheme, it is made abundantly clear that the Court should not stick on to the technicalities and insist for a particular document. But on the basis of over all consideration if the Court is of the opinion that actually the said person participated in the freedom struggle and also has considered to be a freedom fighter. In such an eventuality over all looking into materials has to be taken into consideration to take magnanimous view whether the said person is entitled for pension under the Scheme. Bearing in mind now we will consider the said salient features of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 as to who is eligible for the said Scheme. The said Scheme contains short guidelines, which reads as follows: 1. Salient Features of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. During the Silver Jubilee year of Independence a Central Scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and their eligible dependents (Where freedom fighters have already expired) was introduced by Government of India with effect from 15.08.1972. The said Scheme contains short guidelines, which reads as follows: 1. Salient Features of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. During the Silver Jubilee year of Independence a Central Scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and their eligible dependents (Where freedom fighters have already expired) was introduced by Government of India with effect from 15.08.1972. In 1980, the Scheme was liberalized and renamed as "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980" (the Scheme) and made effective from 01.08.1980. Several provisions of the Original Scheme have been modified and clarified since then through different orders and circulars of the Govt. of India. Salient features of the basic provisions of the Scheme, as amended upto date, are as follows- 2. Who is eligible for Samman Pension: - All the persons who participated in the freedom movement in some way or the other are not eligible for Samman Pension. Only following category of freedom fighters are eligible for the Samman Pension under the Scheme subject to furnishing of the specified evidences. 2.1 Eligible dependents of martyrs: - A martyr is a person who died or who was killed in action or in detention or was awarded capital punishment due to participation in the freedom struggle of India. Relevant documents from official records and newspapers of the relevant time are considered as evidences in such cases. 2.2 Imprisonment: - A person who had suffered minimum imprisonment of six months (3 months in case of women, SC/ST freedom fighters) on account of participation in freedom struggle subject to furnishing of the following evidences: - (a) Imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned jail authority, District Magistrate or the State Govt. indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release. (b) In case records of the relevant period are not available, the secondary evidences in the form of 2 co-prisoner certificates (CPC) from freedom fighters who have proven jail suffering of minimum 1 year and who were with the applicant in the 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 were not available. In case the certifier happens to be a sitting or Ex.M.P/M.L.A, only one certificate in place of the two is required. In case the certifier happens to be a sitting or Ex.M.P/M.L.A, only one certificate in place of the two is required. 2.3 Underground: - A person who on account of his participation in freedom struggle remained underground for more than six months provided he was; a proclaimed offender; or one on whom an award for arrest was announced; or one for whose detention, order was issued but not served. Explanation: Voluntary underground suffering or selfexile suffering for party work under command of the party leaders, are not covered as eligible sufferings for pension under the Central Scheme. The claim of underground suffering is considered subject to furnishing of the following evidence: - (a) Documentary evidence by way of Court's /Govt.'s orders proclaiming the applicant as an absconder, announcing an award on his head or for his arrest or ordering his detention. (b) In case records of the relevant period are not available, secondary evidence in the form of a Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) from a prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering of a minimum two years and who happened to be from the same administrative unit 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 were not available. 11. On careful perusal of the above said pension Scheme of course it clearly discloses under Clause 2.2 of the Scheme that, a person who had suffered minimum imprisonment of six months (3 months in case of women, SC/ST freedom fighters) on account of participation in freedom struggle subject to furnishing of the necessary documents to that effect he is entitled for pension. In order to attract Clause 2.3 of the Scheme as noted above in the said decision of the Apex Court "a person must be a proclaimed offender and on against whom an award for arrest was announced; or detention order was passed but not served and had participated in freedom struggle is entitled for the said pension." If he has no such specific documents in his custody, he can also produce by way of secondary evidence in the form of a Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) from a prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering of a minimum two years and who happened to be from the same administrative unit. After due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certifies, such documentary evidences from the official records in support of the claim if documents were not available. 12. Therefore, it is clear that if some documents produced by the person who claims pension under the Scheme he was a freedom fighter that he has participated in the Movement of freedom fight and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and he has also undergone the said punishment and in such eventuality the Court has to grant pension to such persons considering the magnanimous object of the Scheme. 13. In the above said backdrop, we have carefully considered the documents produced before the Court vide Annexure-B is in Urdu language and the translated version is also annexed along with the same, which shows that he has produced the Register-2 maintained by the Criminal Court i.e. Munsiff and JMFC Court, Gulbarga for the year 1356 Fasli, at Sl.No.235, which shows that the respondent was cited as accused No.7 i.e. Prabhakar Sidramappa Thalangi r/o Makdumpura Gulbarga along with other accused persons. The said Register extract also discloses that all the accused persons were punished for the offences "under Section 119(7) and under Section 7(1) (11) of Arms Act, and under Section 27 of Protection of Peace and Public Tranquility and under Section 37 of Country Defence Act, and under Section 7 of Criminal Code, for a period of six months and as per Section (530) of Criminal Code the file is struck off from the number and the same is consigned to record." 14. The above said document clearly discloses that, the respondent was convicted for the above said offences for having participated in the freedom fight. Because the offences under Section 27 of Protection of Peace and Public Tranquility itself proves that he has participated in a freedom struggle. In support of this, Annexure-C document which is produced before this Court clearly discloses that the same was issued by one Sharan Gouda Inamdar, Ex.M.L.A., Border Camp Incharge Sindagi. Because the offences under Section 27 of Protection of Peace and Public Tranquility itself proves that he has participated in a freedom struggle. In support of this, Annexure-C document which is produced before this Court clearly discloses that the same was issued by one Sharan Gouda Inamdar, Ex.M.L.A., Border Camp Incharge Sindagi. In which it is stated that, the camp was there in respect of Hyderabad Liberation Struggle between 21.03.1948 to 18.09.1948 and the said certificate shows that the respondent was entrusted with the work of spying in the border of Akkalkot in SolLapur district to get the correct information regarding the concentration of Nizam's Military and Police on the border of Gulbarga and the respondent has led work risking his life. Though he was a very young man he had successfully done his work and the said Ex.MLA has stated that respondent may be treated as one of the freedom fighter. 15. Though the Government has taken into consideration this aspect but observed that, the freedom Movement of Hyderabad Liberation Movement actually started from August, 1947, and therefore it is impossible to believe that even before the commencement of Hyderabad Liberation Movement itself the said person had participated in the Movement and got punishment in July 1947. Though Liberation has started as stated by the State Government but this spy work must have been started much earlier to that. Therefore, it must be with reference to the said movement must have acted as a spy in that regard. 16. Even learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, for the purpose of starting the said struggle during particular point of time the respondent had acted as a spy this argument in our opinion cannot easily brushed aside. However, material shows that respondent had participated in the Movement. 17. The next question arises that, on the basis of conviction whether he had undergone punishment of six months? The documents produced before the Court shows that as on 30.10.1999 an endorsement was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad District Prison, stating that the jail certificate cannot be issued from the office with reference to the period of imprisonment undergone by the respondent because the records of jail have been destroyed under the police action. 18. The documents produced before the Court shows that as on 30.10.1999 an endorsement was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad District Prison, stating that the jail certificate cannot be issued from the office with reference to the period of imprisonment undergone by the respondent because the records of jail have been destroyed under the police action. 18. In this context, the Court has asked the petitioner to file an affidavit to establish that he had actually underdone punishment of six months as per the conviction judgment passed by the criminal Court as noted above. In pursuance of the same, he has filed his affidavit stating that after conviction order was passed, he has undergone detention and during his detention in Osmanabad jail, there were two other persons from Gulbarga namely, Kondappa and Laxmanrao. However, both are dead long back. In view of the non-availability of documents he could not secure proof for having undergone six months imprisonment pursuant to his convection order. Therefore, he is specific in his affidavit that though records are not available he has undergone the punishment imposed by the criminal Court. There is no reason for Court to totally disbelieve the said version by means of sworn affidavit before this Court. 19. Further added to the above, the person who had undergone more than two years in jail, as there is no dispute that the said person by name Sharana Gouda Ex.MLA has issued the certificate with reference to the first respondent being a freedom fighter and risking his life he had worked as a spy, such certificate also in our opinion cannot be totally disbelieved. Though the said certificate is not in compliance with Clause 2.3(b) of the Scheme, but it can be safely used for the purpose of ascertaining that the respondent had actually participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement. 20. We have seen the respondent, who is before the Court on the date of passing this order. He is age old, in the evening of his life. We presume that Government will pay the pension during his life time at least, so that he can comfortably spend his remaining life. 21. Therefore, looking from the above said angles, in our opinion magnanimous view that has been taken by the writ Court is not erroneous and in our opinion it does not call for any interference. We presume that Government will pay the pension during his life time at least, so that he can comfortably spend his remaining life. 21. Therefore, looking from the above said angles, in our opinion magnanimous view that has been taken by the writ Court is not erroneous and in our opinion it does not call for any interference. However, we made it clear that the respondent is entitled for the pension from the date of filing of the writ appeal. 22. With these observations, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ appeal is hereby partly allowed. The order passed in W.P.No.80203/2010 is hereby confirmed to the extent of direction issued to the Government to release the pension to the petitioner therein in terms of the Scheme. But the same is modified to the extent that petitioner shall be paid with the pension with effect from the date of filing of this appeal. For which the first respondent also has no objection. The appellant is hereby directed to release the pension within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with arrears. In view of disposal of main appeal, I.A.No.2/2019 for production of documents is also disposed of.