The principle of finality or res judicata is a matter of public policy and is one of the pillars on which a judicial system is founded. Once a judgment becomes conclusive, the matters in issue covered thereby cannot be reopened unless fraud or mistake or lack of jurisdiction is cited to challenge it directly at a later stage.

SANJIB BANERJEE, J. :-

The writ petitioner is in appeal complaining of being a third time unlucky in securing the pension that he claims to be is due as a freedom fighter. The appeal poses no real challenge once a fundamental legal principle is recognised, but it is another matter of some importance that the matter throws up.

2. The appellant asserts that he is entitled to partake of the benefits declared for freedom fighters by the Central Government under a scheme floated in the year 1980. The appellant hails from the district of Midnapore which produced its fair share of freedom fighters. The appellant claims that he went underground upon being sought by the British rulers for participating in the Quit India Movement. The appellant has relied on a certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Midnapore that relevant records relating to issue of warrants, proclamations and prosecutions during the period 1930 to 1946 were not available. The appellant applied in August, 1981 stating that he had actively participated in the 1942 movement and remained underground for more than a year. He said that he absconded under the instructions of his immediate leaders and continued work while he remained underground.

3. In the absence of relevant records, the appellant relied on a certificate of suffering by abscondence in the printed Government format signed by one Tarapada Chakraborty as a prominent freedom fighter. Chakraborty certified that the appellant had remained underground for more than six months till or about September, 1944. The appellant's application languished before the Advisory Committee and the State Government for nearly a decade before it was recommended by the State to the Central Government.

4. The appellant applied before this Court in 1994 under Article 226 of the Constitution and a clutch of writ petitions by persons claiming to be freedom fighters and entitled to pension was disposed of by this Court upon certain guidelines being set for various types of matters. The appellant says that it is the following part of the order that is relevant to the appellant :

"So far as the cases falling within the category of Group-1 and 2 are concerned, the Central Government/State Government are hereby directed to pass appropriate orders recommending and/or sanctioning the payment of pension under the Scheme, as the case may be, at an early date, and not later than 3 months from the date of communication of this order............"

5. The Central Government rejected the State's recommendation of the appellant's claim on the ground that official records were available and the appellant had not been able to produce any evidence to substantiate his case of suffering on account of abscondence. The Central Government required the appellant to produce evidence from official records duly certified by the State Government that the evidence was genuine.

6. Thus the appellant was driven to this Court for a second time upon the fresh material produced by him, a certificate issued by freedom fighter Rabindra Nath Giri, being disregarded. Such second writ petition was disposed of on July 23, 2002 on the following lines :

"Accordingly, it would be proper for me at this stage to set aside the reasons given by the said authorities (and direct the Central Government) to decide the matter afresh on the basis of the documents produced before the said authorities and recommended by the State of West Bengal. Such steps to be taken by the said authorities within a period of four weeks from date and I am sure that the Central Government shall act in the matter in the spirit of the scheme only and not otherwise as has been (pointed) out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to hereinabove."

7. By a writing of October 25, 2002 the Central Government found that the appellant was ineligible for grant of pension. The communication referred to judgments of this Court reported at AIR 1995 Cal 336 (Chaitanya Charan Das v. Union of India) an