The Central Government has the final authority to determine the genuineness of the claim for freedom fighter pension, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the claim is crucial.

1. Being aggrieved by the order of the Central Government dated 11.9.1998 refusing to grant freedom fighters pension, the petitioner has moved this Court in this writ application.

2. A grievance has been made that when the State Government, after repeated queries recommended the case to the Central Government for grant of such pension the concerned Government has no jurisdiction to refuse the same.

3. According to the petitioner he was convicted in G.R.Case No. 736/42 registered under Section 395 of the Penal Code read with Section 38(5) D.l.R. The petitioner remained absconded and continued his freedom movement from underground. Subsequently, pursuant to the decision of the Interim Government his case was dropped. In 1982 the petitioner filed an application for grant of freedom fighter pension and since then the State Government on verification of the case record recommended his case to the Central Government. By letter dated 5.7.1991 (Annexure-6) the Central Government asked the petitioner to submit certain papers in triplicate. He submitted his papers as required by the Central Government and thereafter also the concerned Government made further query by letter dated 25.3.1994 (annexure-9). The Director Cum Deputy Secretary (Home) Special, Bihar sent all the reports along with recommendation.

4. In this background it is alleged that even though on scrutiny the State Government was satisfied and sent its recommendations, the Central Government illegally refused the benefit available to the petitioner under the Scheme.

5. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to various annexures submits that when on the direction of the Central Government the State Government scrutinised the pros and cons of the entire materials in relation to the petitioner and ultimately sent its recommendation for grant of pension, the Central Government was not justified in denying the said benefit. Mr. J.P.Karn, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, on the other hand, submits that the Central Government being the final authority for grant of such pension has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim from the records available before it. Referring to statements made in the counter affidavit, he further submits that on the basis of the letter of the State Government dated 17.12.1992 a new file was opened as earlier file of the petitioner was not available in the Ministry. It asked the State Government to send all the previous papers relating to the case of the petitioner. When the documents were sent in March, 1994 the Central Government found that the petitioner had applied for grant of pension in 1982 claiming of absconsion from August 1942 to 1945 being involved in G.R.No.736/42. This created suspicion because according to the Central Government if the decision was taken to sanction pension to him in 1991 as claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the letter dated 5.7.1991 as to why some clarifications were sought for from the State Government in 1992. Different file numbers were given.

6. On close scrutiny doubt arose in the mind of the authority in relation to the signature of the petitioner on his applications of different dates. Similarly his absconsion was not proved from the documents inasmuch as no name was indicated in the list of "proclaimed offenders not arrested". The petitioner was requested to clarify this position but on his visit to the office of the Deputy Secretary, Freedom Fighter Pension in 1998 he could not explain this point about his claim relating to the date of disposal of the case, his exact involvement in the case and final outcome of it. He merely put emphasis on the fact that all documents in relation to his case are complete.

7. From the counter affidavit it appears that the Central Government found from the copy of the decision of G.R.Case that a fine of Rs. 200/- was imposed on all the accused persons in September, 1944 but there was no indication in