The binding nature of previous judgments, the authenticity of supporting documents, and the lack of error in the impugned order were central legal points established in the judgment.

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. As we have invited the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties to address us on merits of the appeal, we condone the delay towards preference of the instant appeal and allow the application being CAN No. 7045 of 2016.

2. A procrastinated legal battle pertaining to grant of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said scheme) culminated in an order dated 21st January, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7469 (W) of 2000 upholding the claim towards grant of pension under the said scheme. The said order dated 21st January, 2016 is under challenge in the instant appeal.

3. The undisputed facts are that Niranjan Kumar Bhanja submitted an application for pension under the said scheme on 14th August, 1981 accompanied with a Personal Knowledge Certificate (hereinafter referred to as PKC) of a prominent freedom fighter, namely, Rabindra Nath Giri. The claim towards grant of such pension was recommended by the State Government vide memorandum dated 4th October, 1989. As no final order was passed by the appellants herein, writ petition being W.P. No. 21035 (W) 1998 was preferred which was disposed of by an order dated 14th June, 1999 directing the appellants to consider the claim with due regard to the order passed in C.O. No. 1067 of 1998 (Gokul Ch. Panja Vs. Union of India & Ors.). Pursuant thereto, the appellant no.2 rejected such claim by an order dated 13th September, 1999 which was again challenged by a writ petition being W.P. No. 20627 (W) 1999. The said writ petition was thereafter disposed of by an order dated 4th October, 1999 setting aside the impugned order dated 13th September, 1999 and directing the Central Government to release pension amount to the petitioner. The appellants did not prefer any appeal against the said order dated 4th October, 1999 and the appellant no.2 passed an order dated 9th February, 2000 intimating, inter alia, that the matter has been examined and sanction has been accorded to grant provisional pension in favour of the writ petitioner. Subsequent thereto, by a notice dated 28th February, 2000 written by a person for the under Secretary to the Government of India, the provisional pension sanctioned in favour of the writ petitioner was cancelled. The said order was again challenged by a writ petition being W.P. No.7469 (W) of 2000 and in the same an interim order was passed on 12th June, 2000 staying the operation of the impugned order dated 28th February, 2000. During pendency of the writ petition Niranjan Kumar Bhanja expired on 14th February, 2001 and his widow pursued the said litigation upon substitution. The said writ petition was finally heard by this Court and allowed by an order dated 21st January, 2016 setting aside the order dated 28th February, 2000.

4. Scrutiny of the records reveal that the ground for rejection of the claim towards pension contained in the orders dated 13th September, 1999 and 28th February, 2000 passed by the appellant no. 2 are almost identical. The claim towards pension was primarily denied on the ground that no supporting document could be produced by Niranjan Kumar Bhanja to prove that either detention orders were passed against him or he was declared a proclaimed offender or there was an award for his arrest and that he went underground voluntarily as per direction of the leader. The said reasoning given by the appellant no.2 in the order dated 13th September, 1999 had already been set aside in the earlier round of litigation by an order of this Court dated 4th October, 1999 and no appeal was preferred against the same by the appellants herein. Furthermore, the order dated 28th February, 2000 was passed being oblivious of the fact that the claim for pension had already been recommended by the State Government by a memorandum dated 4th October, 1989 and that the District Magistrate had certified that the records pertaining to the period from 19