1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Government of India as also counsel for the State.

2. This Court would find that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme is not de hors such earlier orders of rejection. Earlier also the claim was rejected on 4.8.1986, again oh 5.5.1993 and also on 13.11.1998. Such fact mentioned in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder affidavit. That would mean that the petitioners case received ample consideration and probably in its all possible ramification. As a matter of fact the order dated 10th of August, 2001 also sets out the reasons which on examination are not found to be either vitiated or based on error of record. Such reasons are:

3. As a matter of fact when the attention of the learned counsel was invited to reason no. 1 and the corresponding document being Annexure-2, he would fairly agree that no detail whatsoever was given with regard to the plea of petitioner being underground freedom fighter. He, however, submits that later on this was sought to be rectified by t