ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Letter dated 06.09.2024 rejecting petitioner’s claim for pension is assailed in this Writ Petition on the ground that it violates the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 345 of 2021, dated 15.12.2023 and is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India , (2001) 8 SCC 8 , which mandates a liberal and non-technical approach while considering claims under the Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme. 2. Petitioner claims to be the widow and dependent of Late Katanguru Narasimha Reddy, who participated in Hyderabad Liberation movement during 15.08.1947 to 17.09.1948. She seeks family pension under the Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short, ‘the Scheme’). It is stated the Government of India recognised the Hyderabad Liberation Struggle against Nizam’s Rule as part of the freedom movement and extended the Pension Scheme to its participants and constituted a Special Screening Committee on 05.10.1983 under the chairmanship of Sri G.M. Shroff. The Committee identified 98 border camps, including 41 in Telangana, 37 in Marathwada and 20 in Karnataka, examined about 21,000 cases and recommended nearly 7,000 cases. 2.1. Petitioner’s husband is stated to have participated in Chanda Camp headed by Mr. K.V. Narsing Rao for a period exceeding six months, however, his case was not initially included among the recommended cases. Later, following the representations regarding omission of eligible freedom fighters, the Screening Committee was reconstituted several times, including by proceedings dated 30.08.1990 and 17.12.1996 under the chairmanship of Sri N. Giri Prasad and again in 1997, under the chairmanship of Sri Ch. Rajeshwar Rao. The Committee chaired by Sri Ch. Rajeshwar Rao conducted extensive deliberations for over one year, undertook field visits along with the Deputy Secretary, Home Affairs, Government of India, and collected A, B, C and D Forms from recommended candidates to expedite sanction of pension. Petitioner’s husband had submitted his application for pension on 04.08.1987. 2.2. Based on the recommendations of the last Screening Committee, Applications were scrutinised by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector, and were forwarded through the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. The Central Government issued D.O. No.112-5/Misc98-FF(HC) Vol-III, dated 06.07.2000 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh enclosing a list of 21 persons forwarded by Shri K.V. Keshavulu, former member of N. Giri Prasad Committee and Ch. The Central Government issued D.O. No.112-5/Misc98-FF(HC) Vol-III, dated 06.07.2000 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh enclosing a list of 21 persons forwarded by Shri K.V. Keshavulu, former member of N. Giri Prasad Committee and Ch. Rajeshwar Rao Committee, seeking verification and entitlement reports. The name of Late Katanguru Narasimha Reddy appeared in the said list. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by letter dated 22.12.2001, recommended petitioner’s husband as a freedom fighter to the District Collector, Warangal, after completing verification. The District Collector, Warangal, after additional verification, addressed letter Rc.No.C5/92/2002 dated 2002 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh recommending petitioner’s husband for grant of freedom fighters’ pension. 2.3. Despite these recommendations, petitioner’s husband did not receive pension during his lifetime and passed away in 2002. Following litigation concerning pending claims of freedom fighters, Respondent No.1 issued Letter No.112/5/98- FF(HC)-E dated 2003 granting pension to petitioner as the widow of Late Katanguru Narasimha Reddy and directing Respondent No.3 to release pension. The letter also acknowledged death of petitioner’s husband and recognised petitioner as eligible beneficiary, however, pension was not released, compelling petitioner to submit repeated representations, including one in February 2019. 2.4. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 issued Letter dated 29.04.2019 rejecting petitioner’s claim on the grounds that her husband’s name did not appear in the computerised list of recommended cases and that pension had not been sanctioned during his lifetime, rendering her ineligible under para 1.5 of the Revised Policy Guidelines dated 06.08.2014. Aggrieved by the said rejection, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.345 of 2021, wherein by order dated 15.12.2023, rejection letter dated 29.04.2019 was set aside and Respondent No.1 was directed to reconsider her case duly considering the RDO’s recommendation dated 22.12.2001, the District Collector’s recommendation made in 2002, all material on record, and to pass a reasoned order after affording personal hearing to petitioner within four weeks. Despite, Respondent No.1 issued letters dated 21.02.2024 and 13.03.2024 reiterating that pension could not be sanctioned posthumously since it was not sanctioned during the lifetime of the freedom fighter. 2.5. Alleging wilful disobedience, petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 517 of 2024; during the said proceedings, Respondent No.1 withdrew letters dated 21.02.2024 and 13.03.2024 by letter dated 05.08.2024 and directed petitioner to appear in person on 20.08.2024 before the FFR Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, NDCC-II Building, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi. 2.5. Alleging wilful disobedience, petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 517 of 2024; during the said proceedings, Respondent No.1 withdrew letters dated 21.02.2024 and 13.03.2024 by letter dated 05.08.2024 and directed petitioner to appear in person on 20.08.2024 before the FFR Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, NDCC-II Building, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi. Petitioner appeared as directed, however, within a short span, Respondent No.1 issued the impugned Letter dated 06.09.2024 again rejecting her claim, raising grounds which, according to petitioner, were either already considered and rejected by this Court in its judgment dated 15.12.2023 or were raised as afterthoughts. 2.6. In Contempt Case No.517 of 2024, this Court by order dated 25.10.2024 granted liberty to petitioner to submit a representation to Respondent No.4 - Principal Secretary to the State Government, Revenue Department, for forwarding and recommending the name of Late Katanguru Narasimha Reddy to the Government of India. Pursuant to the liberty granted, petitioner submitted representation dated 29.10.2024. Respondent No.4, by letter dated 09.11.2024, instead of forwarding the recommendation, directed petitioner to submit a fresh representation with proof of discrepancies pointed out by the Ministry of Home Affairs, while recording that her husband had been recommended as far back as in 2002. 2.7. The contempt proceedings were disposed of by order dated 09.12.2024 granting liberty to petitioner to avail remedies available under law against the proceedings dated 06.09.2024. Petitioner contends that impugned rejection letter dated 06.09.2024 reiterated the reasons which were already rejected by this Court in its order dated 15.12.2023. 3. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, it is stated, the case of late Shri Katanguri Narsimha Reddy was initially examined under the applicable guidelines dated 04.12.2002, and during such examination, identification documents were called for by the Ministry vide communication dated 19.02.2003. Before the process could reach finality, the said Narsimha Reddy expired on 02.01.2002. Thereafter, his widow i.e. petitioner submitted documents on 29.03.2003 seeking pensionary benefits in her capacity as dependent. On scrutiny of the official records, it was observed that the name of late Shri Narsimha Reddy did not appear in the computerized list of freedom fighter pension cases recommended by the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee and there is a confusion with the main file pertaining to another claimant. In view of these discrepancies, clarification was sought from the State Government; however, no report or confirmation was received from the State authorities. In view of these discrepancies, clarification was sought from the State Government; however, no report or confirmation was received from the State authorities. 3.1. It is further stated, petitioner did not pursue the matter or make any representation for a prolonged period of nearly seventeen years between 2003 and 2019. During this intervening period, the Government of India issued the Revised Policy Guidelines dated 06.08.2014 governing the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. Para 1.5 expressly provides that no pension shall be sanctioned in the name of a freedom fighter after his or her death, even if the claim was under examination at the time of death. Respondents rely upon this provision as an express statutory bar. 3.2. On receipt of petitioner’s representation in 2019, the Ministry rejected her claim vide order dated 29.04.2019 strictly in accordance with the Revised Guidelines dated 06.08.2014. Aggrieved thereby, she filed Writ Petition No.345 of 2021 which was disposed of on 15.12.2023 with a direction to reconsider the case after taking into account the recommendations of the District authorities and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. In compliance with the said order, respondents reconsidered the matter and passed the order dated 13.03.2024 reiterating that pension had never been sanctioned during the lifetime of late Shri Katanguri Narsimha Reddy, therefore, dependent family pension could not be granted. Subsequently, petitioner filed Contempt Case No.517 of 2024. In the said contempt proceedings, officers of the Ministry of Home Affairs personally appeared before the Court on 08.08.2024. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, a team of officials visited petitioner’s residence at Hyderabad, verified the documents available with her, and afforded her a personal hearing. It was found during such verification that no new or conclusive documents were produced beyond what was already on record. 3.3. After considering the entire administrative record, the verification report, and the applicable policy guidelines, the Ministry passed a detailed speaking order dated 06.09.2024 rejecting the claim of petitioner. Respondents further submit that internal file notings, correspondence or draft proposals cannot confer any enforceable right unless a final sanction order duly approved and authenticated by the competent authority is issued. In the present case, no such final sanction order was ever issued in favour of late Shri Katanguri Narsimha Reddy, and therefore no vested right accrued either to him or to petitioner. 3.4. In the present case, no such final sanction order was ever issued in favour of late Shri Katanguri Narsimha Reddy, and therefore no vested right accrued either to him or to petitioner. 3.4. It is reiterated that under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, the burden of proof lies squarely on the claimant to establish eligibility through admissible documentary evidence verified and recommended by the State Government. Petitioner, despite opportunities, failed to produce any new or conclusive evidence to overcome the material discrepancies noted in the official record. 3.5. Respondents state that judicial review in such matters is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. In the present case, the process is asserted to be lawful, fair, proportionate, and in strict compliance with policy. It is further contended that the eligibility provisions under the Pension Scheme are statutory in character and cannot be expanded through judicial intervention. Grant of relief contrary to the Scheme would result in arbitrary extension of benefits and violates the principle of uniformity among similarly situated claimants. Petitioner’s reliance on Gurdial Singh ’s case was denied contending that subsequent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have clarified strict document-based nature of the Scheme. It is also denied that any pension was sanctioned in 2003 or at any point during the lifetime of late Shri Katanguri Narsimha Reddy. It is reiterated that mere inclusion of a name in correspondence or provisional lists does not amount to sanction. 3.6. Respondents also deny allegations of bureaucratic delay and assert that delay is attributable to petitioner’s silence for nearly seventeen years and absence of verified documentation. It is denied that petitioner was compelled to produce unnecessary documents; the requirement arose due to discrepancies and lack of verification. It is stated, letters dated 21.02.2024 and 13.03.2024 merely reiterated the policy bar under Para 1.5 of the Revised Guidelines dated 06.08.2014 and were not in disobedience of the Court’s order. The recall letter dated 05.08.2024 was issued only to facilitate personal hearing in compliance with judicial directions. The impugned order was passed based on fresh verification, absence of recommendation in the computerized Hyderabad Special Screening Committee list, discrepancies in records, prolonged delay, and the express policy bar. 3.7. The recall letter dated 05.08.2024 was issued only to facilitate personal hearing in compliance with judicial directions. The impugned order was passed based on fresh verification, absence of recommendation in the computerized Hyderabad Special Screening Committee list, discrepancies in records, prolonged delay, and the express policy bar. 3.7. It is admitted that Contempt Case was disposed of on 09.12.2024 granting liberty to petitioner to pursue remedies in accordance with law, which according to respondents establishes that there was no contempt or violation on their part. It is finally stated, in the absence of recommendation, absence of sanction order and the statutory bar under the Revised Guidelines, petitioner is not entitled to dependent family pension and the impugned order warrants no interference. 4. Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri TPS Harsha, learned counsel for petitioner arguing on the same lines mentioned in writ and rejoinder, places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India (supra), Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 , and Uttim Lal Singh v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnlineDel 7112 , to contend that once State authorities and screening committees have recommended a claim, a liberal and non-pedantic approach is required. It is argued that pension must be granted from the date of Application and respondents cannot seek verification of documents again and again. 4.1. Learned Senior counsel also contended that recommendations in favour of petitioner’s husband were made during 1998 to 2003, and despite verification, re- recommendation, and directions of this Court to consider the claim on the basis of re-verification reports, respondents continued to raise one ground or the other to deny pension. It is alleged that several deserving freedom fighters died awaiting pension and respondents’ conduct reflects deliberate delay. 5. Sri B. Narsimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdamba Devi v. Union of India and contends that the Pension Scheme, 1980 is strictly a document-based scheme and that the prescribed documents must be produced, verified, and recommended by the State Government concerned. 5. Sri B. Narsimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdamba Devi v. Union of India and contends that the Pension Scheme, 1980 is strictly a document-based scheme and that the prescribed documents must be produced, verified, and recommended by the State Government concerned. He also relied on Union of India v. A. Alagam Perumal Kone ( Civil Appeal No.680 of 2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that unless the eligibility criteria under the scheme are fulfilled, no applicant can claim pension as a matter of right. Further reliance is placed on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Smt. Jafli Devi, 1997 (5) SCC 301 , to contend that sympathetic considerations cannot override express policy provisions even under beneficial schemes. 6. The issue in the present Writ Petition is not about participation of Late Katanguru Narasimha Reddy in Hyderabad Liberation Movement, but whether the statutory and policy requirements governing the Pension Scheme stood satisfied so as to confer a legally-enforceable right upon petitioner for grant of dependent family pension. 7. It is not in dispute that Late Katanguru Narasimha Reddy expired on 02.01.2002. It is also not in dispute that no final pension sanction order, duly approved and authenticated by the competent authority of the Government of India, was issued in his favour during his lifetime. The entire claim of petitioner rests upon recommendations, correspondence, verification reports, and provisional communications emanating from the State Authorities and Screening Committees. While such material, undoubtedly, demonstrates that the claim was examined at various stages, settled law makes it clear that recommendations or internal correspondence do not amount to sanction and do not create a vested or accrued right in the absence of a final order of sanction. 8. The Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980 is a policy scheme governed strictly by its eligibility conditions and guidelines. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments in Jagdamba Devi and A. Alagam Perumal Kone cases (supra), has categorically held that the Scheme is document-based and that the burden of establishing eligibility squarely lies on the claimant. The Apex Court has further held that unless the prescribed documentary requirements are satisfied and a sanction is granted in accordance with the Scheme, no claim can be sustained as a matter of right. 9. The Apex Court has further held that unless the prescribed documentary requirements are satisfied and a sanction is granted in accordance with the Scheme, no claim can be sustained as a matter of right. 9. The Revised Policy Guidelines dated 06.08.2014, which are applicable to undecided and pending claims, contain Para 1.5, which expressly provides that ‘no pension shall be sanctioned in the name of a freedom fighter after his or her death, even if the claim was under examination at the time of death’. This provision is clear, unambiguous and mandatory in nature. Once such a policy bar operates, neither administrative authorities nor constitutional Courts can direct grant of pension contrary to the express terms of the Scheme. Beneficial schemes, though deserving liberal interpretation, cannot be administered in derogation of their governing provisions. 10. In the rejoinder, petitioner reiterates reliance on Gurdial Singh, Mukund Lal Bhandari and Uttim Lal Singh ’s cases (supra) contending that a liberal approach must be adopted and that Para 1.5 cannot be applied to her case. The contention that Para 1.5 stands concluded in favour of petitioner by the order dated 15.12.2023 in Writ Petition No.345 of 2021 cannot be accepted. A careful reading of the said order reveals that this Court had set aside the earlier rejection dated 29.04.2019 and directed reconsideration after affording personal hearing and considering the material on record. The said order did not declare petitioner entitled to pension nor did it strike down Para 1.5 or exempt her from its operation. Reconsideration pursuant to judicial directions does not guarantee a favourable outcome; it only ensures a lawful decision-making process. 11. The record further demonstrates that pursuant to the said order dated 15.12.2023, respondents reconsidered the matter, afforded personal hearing, conducted on-site verification, examined the available records and passed a detailed speaking order dated 06.09.2024, impugned in the Writ Petition. The decision-making process, therefore, cannot be faulted on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice or non-compliance with judicial directions. 12. Petitioner’s assertion that pension was sanctioned in 2003 to her husband is not borne out by any final sanction order. Respondents have consistently stated that no such sanction order exists and that internal correspondence or provisional communications cannot be equated with sanction. This position is supported by settled law that internal file notings and draft proposals do not confer enforceable rights. Respondents have consistently stated that no such sanction order exists and that internal correspondence or provisional communications cannot be equated with sanction. This position is supported by settled law that internal file notings and draft proposals do not confer enforceable rights. Further, the prolonged silence of petitioner between 2003 and 2019 is also a relevant circumstance. During this intervening period, the Revised Policy Guidelines dated 06.08.2014 came into force, which govern the field and bind both the authorities and the Court. 13. Respondents contend that petitioner’s husband’s name is not there in the computerized list of the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee and discrepancies in records cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant. These discrepancies necessitated verification and clarification, which, according to respondents, could not be conclusively resolved. In such circumstances, the Court cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority, particularly when judicial review is confined to examining the legality of the decision- making process and not the merits of the decision itself. Though petitioner pleaded that she is in advanced age, the same cannot override the express provisions of the Scheme, as was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Smt. Jafli Devi ’s that sympathetic considerations, however compelling, cannot be a ground to grant relief contrary to statutory or policy provisions. 14. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that respondents have demonstrated that impugned order dated 06.09.2024 was passed after due reconsideration, verification and hearing, hence, the same does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 16. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.