IMPORTANT POINT
For a freedom fighter pension, one of the basic requirements was a certificate to the effect that jail records were not available unless jail certificate was filed.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. — Leave granted.

2. The Union of India calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by it. Learned Single Judge whose order was assailed before the Division Bench had held that the respondent was entitled to freedom fighters pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (in short scheme).

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-

The respondent claimed that he had participated in the freedom struggle of the country and had suffered imprisonment and was, therefore, entitled to pension under the scheme. Earlier there was a Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 scheme). The later Scheme was introduced in 1980. Though initially pension was granted to the respondent, by order dated 18.12.2000, it was indicated on inquiry that the respondent had indicated two different versions while claiming pension under the Scheme. In the application accompanied by an affidavit filed before the State of Punjab, the period of imprisonment was indicated to be 20.10.1942 to 20.10.1943. But a different period i.e. 20.10.1942 to 15.8.1943 was indicated in the application and the affidavit filed before the Union. It was also noted that the respondent had accepted the above position to be correct, but attributed the same to his illiteracy. The pension sanctioned to him was cancelled and he was directed to refund the amount which had already been paid to him. A writ petition was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It was initially dismissed. The matter was carried before this Court in Civil Appeal No.8388 of 2001. Since the High Courts order was practically unreasoned, this Court directed the High Court to hear the matter afresh and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. The matter was heard afresh. The High Court noted the submissions of the present appellant that one of the persons who had certified the imprisonment of the respondent as a co-prisoner was black-listed. He had issued certificates to a large number of persons. Though the High Court accepted that there was difference in the dates indicated in the two affidavits, it was held to be inconsequential. Accordingly, direction was given for grant of pension. The matter was carried in appeal by a Letters Patent Appeal, which as noted above, was dismissed.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the application filed by the respondent was incomplete. The requirement in law is that jail certificate is to be filed. In the instant case no such certificate was filed and on the contrary certificate from a person whose credentials were doubtful was filed. The jail certificate in support of jail suffering has to be based on official records of the jail. In case jail certificate is not available, a certificate called Non-Availability of Records Certificate (shortly known as NARC) from the concerned authorities has to be filed. Only if such certificate is filed the Co-prisoners Certificate from two co-prisoners of the enumerated category can be considered. Though the High Court relied on Gurdial Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. (2001(8) SCC 8) to hold that the strict rules of evidence are not to be applied in such cases, the true parameters to be adopted have been indicated in W.B. Freedom Fighters Organisation v. Union of India and Ors. (2004 (7) SCC 716). Since the authorities on consideration of the material on record held that the respondent was not entitled to pension, the High Court should not have interfered in a writ petition, more particularly, when disputed questions of fact are involved.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent in response submitted that the requirement in law is imprisonment for six months. If facts stated in either of the certificates are taken into account, the period indicated is more than six months. A person who is practically i