Based on the legal document provided, the order is as follows:

The appellate court has allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and has set aside the judgment of the High Court that had directed the grant of pension to the respondent. The court has found that the respondent's claim for pension under the scheme of 1980 was not supported by the requisite documentary evidence and that the earlier rejection of his application had become final. The court emphasized that eligibility for pension under the scheme depends on fulfilling the specified criteria and producing the necessary proof, which is a matter for the competent authority to consider. Since the respondent's claim was made after a previous final rejection and without proper supporting documents, and because the High Court disposed of the petition without providing an opportunity for the appellant to present a counter, the order of the High Court was deemed improper.

Consequently, the court dismissed the respondent's writ petition, upheld the appeal, and clarified that each case's entitlement to pension must be determined based on the facts and documentary evidence produced, and not solely on judicial directions. The overall decision underscores that pension claims under such schemes are subject to strict adherence to the eligibility criteria and procedural requirements, and that judicial review should respect the authority of the competent bodies to assess such claims.