HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27379 of 2010 ORDER: The husband of the petitioner submitted an application for sanction of freedom fighter pension under Swatanta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. According to him, he has gone underground and joined in Siripuram Boarder Camp of Congress Party, which according to him was under Repala Headquarter Camp, for which Sri Kodati Narayana Rao was the Chief-in-charge. The application was rejected by the 1st respondent through proceedings, dated 04-06- 2010, on the ground that there is some discrepancy. It was mentioned that the husband of the petitioner claimed that he remained in Siripuram Camp whereas the report of the State Government is that he remained in Repala Camp. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent did not properly understand the purport of the entry in column No.13 of the application and challenges the order of rejection. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 3. The scheme for sanction of freedom fighters’ pension stipulates the circumstances under which a candidate can claim pension. One such is that the applicant must have gone underground and served in a camp. This information has to be furnished under Column No.13 of the prescribed application form. The information furnished by the husband of the petitioner under Column No.13 reads as under: “I had gone underground about ten months. I joined in Siripuram boarder camp of congress party which was under Repala Headquarter camp for which Sri Kodati Narayana was the Chief-in-charge. I joined in armed Dalam and fought against the then Nizam Govt. for the merger of Hyderabad State with the Indian Union.” 4. According to the husband of the petitioner, Siripuram boarder camp was functioning under the Repala Headquarter camp. The Siripuram boarder camp and the Repala camp need to be treated as one unit or separate units, deserves to be considered by the respondents. The 1st respondent has straightaway rejected the application made by the husband of the petitioner by pointing out discrepancy. The explanation offered by the petitioner needs to be taken into account. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 04-06-2010, is set aside. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner duly taking into account the explanation as to the information furnished against Column No.13 in the prescribed application, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J March 21, 2011. KTL