Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:-

"(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant Freedom Fighters Pension as per the scheme to the petitioner being widow of late Shri Dhani Ram (Freedom Fighter) from the due date i.e. w.e.f. 04.04.1974 with all consequential benefits in light of the ratio laid down by the Honble apex Court in (2014) 10 SCC 352 titled as Union of India & another v. Jai Kishun Singh."

2. The facts in brief as set out in the petition are that the husband of petitioner Sh. Dhani Ram served in the Dogra Regiment as Sepoy against enrolment No. 8210 till 13.7.1946, when on account of reduction of Indian Army on demobilization, he was released from service. During his service, Sh. Dhani Ram participated in World War 2nd by joining Indian Army from 1939-1945 and was awarded Pacific Star, Defence Medal and War Medal. That apart, all the similarly situated persons, like the petitioner were declared freedom fighters of the Nation.

3. On 1.8.1973 the State of Himachal Pradesh issued a letter to award Tamrapatras to the freedom fighters of District Bilaspur, Mandi, Hamirpur and Kullu and in the said list Sh. Dhani Rams named figured at Sr. No. 37 alongside one another freedom fighter Lashkari Ram whose name appeared at Sr. No. 12. On 15.8.1973 the Tamrapatra was awarded to Sh. Dhani Ram. The status of Sh. Dhani Ram being freedom fighter was acknowledged by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, when he issued an identity card in his favour vide Annexure P-

4. Sh. Dhani Ram continued to pursue his request for grant of freedom fighter pension, however, before the same could be granted he unfortunately died on 2.5.2010 and it is his widow who thereafter has been pursuing the claim. It is also claimed that the aforesaid Sh. Lashkari Ram who had also been serving with Sh. Dhani Ram in Dogra Regiment against Enrolment No. 9010222 as Lance Naik was awarded pension w.e.f. 4.4.1974 being freedom fighter, whereas the same has been illegally denied to Sh. Dhani Ram (now to his widow).

5. The Deputy Commissioner (respondent No. 4) filed his reply, wherein it was averred that Sh. Dhani Ram served as Sepoy in Dogra Regiment during the British Empire and he was discharged from service on 13th July, 1946 on deduction of Indian Army on demobilization. Thereafter Sh. Dhani Ram never approached the replying respondent for complying his case for benefit of Freedom Fighter. As regards the issuance of Identity Card, it is claimed that the same was issued in his name on the basis of "Citizen" awarded by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 15.8.1972. It is thereafter averred that in the year 2014, one e-mail request from the petitioner was received and the matter was thereafter sent to respondent No. 5 and till date neither the procedural formalities have been completed nor has the petitioner submitted any application in the prescribed proforma to the replying respondent. However, the respondent has admitted that Sh. Lashkari Ram was declared as freedom fighter on his application as per scheme vide letter No. 17-B-1095/73-FF dated 9.8.1973 by the State Government as per pre-requisite verification and documents submitted by him to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

6. The Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh (respondent No. 3) has filed his separate reply, wherein it is admitted that Sh. Dhani Ram served in Dogra Regiment of the British Army for the time claimed in the petition. However, it is claimed that the husband of the petitioner has never submitted any application to the competent authority for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension. It is also averred that though the petitioner had submitted an application 18.2.2015 for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension to her under the Government of India Scheme, however on scrutiny it was found that the petitioner had not made available a certificate of Indian National Army along with her application, showing that her late husband had served in Indian National Army and the same is still awaited from her, despite request.

7. The Union of India (respondent No. 1) in its reply submitted that since no pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 had been granted to the petitioners husband in his life time, therefore, as per the revised guidelines issued on 6th August, 2014, the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable and cannot be granted. These guidelines are clarificatory in nature and have been issued in order to make effective implementation of the scheme in the changing times and reliance has been placed on para 1.5 of the revised guidelines issued under letter F.No. 45/03/2014-FF (P) dated 6th August, 2014 which read as under:-

"No pension shall be sanctioned in the name of the freedom fighter after his/her death even if his/her matter was under examination. This also entails that no lifetime arrears or dependent pension shall be sanction to his/her spouse/daughter after the death of the freedom fighter."

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.

8. At the outset, it may be noticed that none of the respondents have disputed the contention of the petitioner that her late husband, Sh. Dhani Ram and Sh. Lashkari Ram were both serving in Dogra Regiment. Her husband was posted as Sepoy, whereas Sh.Lashkari Ram was a Lance Naik. It is further not in dispute that both these persons were awarded Tamrapatra by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is further not in dispute that names of both Sh. Lashkari Ram and late Sh.Dhani Ram appeared in the list of freedom fighters issued vide letter dated 1.8.1973 at Sr. No. 12 and 37, respectively. Yet again there is no dispute that Sh.Lashkari Ram was declared as freedom fighter, whereas the husband of the petitioner late Sh.Dhani Ram was not granted the pension for the ostensible reason that he had not submitted the requisite documents.

9. Now the question in this background that arises for consideration is whether the State after itself acknowledging Sh.Dhani Ram to be a freedom fighter, can still deny the freedom fighter pension, only on the ground that the application submitted by him was not on the prescribed proforma. A perusal of Tamrapatra clearly goes to show that the same had been awarded to Sh.Dhani Ram for his memorably contribution to the Nation in the war of impendence and the same reads thus:-

"Lora=rk ds iPplhosa o"kZ ds volj ij Lora=rk laxzke esa Lej.kh; ;ksxnku ds fy, jk"V~ dh vksj ls iz/kkuea=h Jherh bafnjk xka/kh us ;g rkezi= HksaV fd;kA"

10. That apart, it would be noticed that the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur himself had issued Identity Card of a Freedom Fighter to Sh.Dhani Ram, which clearly mentions that "this card has been issued to the above on account of his sacrifice for the freedom of the country." Therefore, can the respondents in teeth of such documents refuse to acknowledge the prime sacrifice of Sh.Dhani Ram by taking shelter and recourse to technicalities

11. This Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that here is a widow of 82 years, who has been driven from pillar to post for the legitimate pension, which she is entitled to. I observe so because admittedly the colleague of the petitioner, Sh.Lashkari Ram, who too was working in the Dogra Regiment and whose services too like the husband of the petitioner came to be released on deduction of Indian Army on demobilization on 13.7.1946 had been given Tamrapatra had thereafter been granted pension, then why the same without any rhyme and reason has been denied for the petitioner

12. To hold that the petitioner is not entitled to freedom fighter pension would otherwise amount to invidious discrimination. The guarantee of equal protection embraces the entire realm of State action and once such an individual discrimination is made out, it would not lie in the mouth of the respondents that they should still be permitted to protect such discrimination, more particularly, when it is proved on record that the petitioner viz-a-viz similarly situated persons, who have been granted pension has alone been denied the same.

13. Indisputably, the Scheme for granting freedom fighters Pension was introduced in the year 1972 on the occasion of Silver Jubilee of National Independence. The freedom fighters pension scheme was introduced with an ultimate object of providing grant of pension to the living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs, who had participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any scheme at that relevant point of time. The object of the scheme is not only to honour but also to mitigate the sufferings of the persons who had scarified their all for the sake of country, hence a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed at the time of considering the case of a person seeking pension under such scheme. Once, it is evident on the basis of the material available on record that the claimant of pension had suffered incarceration for the cause of the Country, a presumption has to be drawn in his favour, until the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable material evidence.

14. The Honble Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and others (2001) 8 SCC 8 , laid down the object of the scheme in the following terms:

"The scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. It has to be kept in mind that millions of masses of this country had participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any scheme at the relevant time. It has also to be kept in mind that in the partition of the country most of citizens who suffered imprisonment were handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. The problem of getting the record from the foreign country is very cumbersome and expensive. Keeping in mind the object of the scheme, the concerned authorities are required that in appreciating the scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rationale and not a technical approach is required to be adopted. It has also to be kept in mind that the claimants of the scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their life for the country. This Court in Mukand Lal Bhandari case observed (SCC pp.7-8, para 9) "The object in making the said relaxation was not to reward or compensate the sacrifices made in the freedom struggle. The object was to honour and where it was necessary, also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact, many of those who do not have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it, since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with which they plunged in the Freedom Struggle. The spirit of the Scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind of a programme of compensation. Yet that may be the result if the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever the date the application is made. The scheme should retain its high objective with which it was motivated. It should not further be forgotten that now its benefit is made available irrespective of the income limit. Secondly, and this is equally important to note, since we are by this decision making the benefit of the scheme available irrespective of the date on which the application is made, it would not be advisable to extend the benefit retrospectively. Lastly, the pension under the present Scheme is not the only benefit made available to the freedom fighters or their dependents. The preference in employment, allotment of accommodation and in admission to schools and colleges of their kith and kin etc., are also the other benefits which have been made available to them for quite sometime now."

The Court categorically mentioned that the pension under the scheme should be made payable from the date on which the application is made whether it is accompanied by necessary proof of eligibility or not".

The standard of proof required to establish a case is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of a party. This position has been made clear when one reads paragraph-7 of the judgment from Gurdial Singhs case (supra) which provides:

"7. The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As the object of the scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by scheme have suffered for the country about half a century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the scheme. The case of the claimants under this scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touch-stone of the test of beyond reasonable doubt. Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence."

15. In State of Orissa v. Choudhuri Nayak (2010) 8 SCC 796 , the Honble Supreme Court has held that no genuine Freedom Fighter should be denied pension.

16. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has vehemently argued that this Court cannot sit in judgment over the decision taken by the competent authority and would rely upon the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and others v. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar (2004) 6 SCC 584 , Mahender Singh v. Union of India (2010) 12 SCC 675 and Union of India and another v. Jai Kishun Singh (2014) 10 SCC 352.

17. Obviously, there can be no dispute regarding the preposition laid down in the aforesaid cases, more particularly, when the same under Article 141 of the Constitution are binding on this Court, but these judgments would apply only in case there is any decision taken by the respondents. Here this Court is dealing with a case wherein the respondents are yet to take a decision. It is thus clear that the respondents have pre-judged the issue, by claiming that the petitioner is not entitled to the pension, though in the same breath they would claim that the petitioner has not even submitted any documents. Notably, the respondents herein are none other, but the functionaries of the State and Central Government, who are under an obligation to conduct themselves with high probity and expected candour, but unfortunately the conduct of the respondents fall short of this expectation.

18. Adverting to the defence raised by respondent No. 1, whereby it is taken shelter under the guidelines issued on 6th August, 2014, I have no hesitation to hold that the same are bad in law. After all a persons claim can deemed to be dismissed only because of procedural delays. That apart, the guidelines are even otherwise not in tune with the avowed object of the scheme, as extracted in para 13 (supra), coupled with the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in Gurdial Singhs case (supra). Moreover, once there is no dispute that the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 has itself not been withdrawn, then obviously the same cannot indirectly be held to have become non-operative by issuance of revised guidelines or else the scheme would be deemed to have become redundant and otiose.

19. That apart, it is not in dispute that the guidelines issued subsequently by respondents in the year 2014 are only in furtherance of the scheme and therefore, once the scheme still exists, such guidelines cannot override the scheme. Respecting and rewarding is probably the least one can do for the freedom fighters of this country.

20. In light of the aforesaid discussion, though it is proved on record that the husband of the petitioner was freedom fighter and therefore, entitled for grant of freedom fighter pension. However, as there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner or for that matter late Sh. Dhani Ram had ever applied for grant of such pension on the prescribed performa, I feel that the ends of justice would be subserved in case the following directions are passed:

(i) That the petitioner shall within a period of four weeks from passing of this judgment submit an application to the competent authority on the prescribed proforma for grant of freedom fighter pension.

(ii) The respondents thereafter shall within a period of eight weeks from receipt of such application grant pension to the petitioner from the due date i.e. w.e.f. 4.4.1974.

(iii) On failure to release pension within eight weeks aforesaid, the respondents shall be liable to pay 9% interest on the said pension w.e.f. due date. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their costs.