Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point which arises for decision in both these Writ Appeals is whether the imprisonment in jail as under trail prisoner could be reckoned for computing the six months period of imprisonment for getting freedom fighters pension.

2. The undisputed facts are the following: - The first petitioner in OP No.31246/99 is a freedom fighter. The other petitioners in that Original Petition and the petitioner in OP No.31395/99 are the widows of freedom fighters. All of them are getting freedom fighters pension/freedom fighters family pension from the State Government. When the Central Government declared that Punnapra Vayalar struggle was also part of the freedom struggle, they became eligible for the Central pension also. But their applications were not favourably considered because the imprisonment suffered by the concerned freedom fighters was as under trial prisoners and not as convicts. According to Central Government, even though they were freedom fighters in terms of the scheme and were charge sheeted by the police in connection with the freedom struggle, they are not eligible for pension as their cases ended in acquittal. They were only under trial prisoners. So, they are ineligible for pension, the Central Government contended.

2. Therefore, the decision in these cases will rest on the true construction of the provisions of the freedom fighters pension scheme known as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

3. The Scheme has been produced as Ext.P1 in OP No.31246/1999. A freedom fighter who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the main land jails is eligible for pension. The relevant clause in the Scheme given in paragraph 4(a) of Ext.P1 reads as follows: -

" 4(a) A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before independence. However, Ex_INA personnel will be eligible for pension if the imprisonment /detention suffered by them was outside India."

An explanation has been added to the said clause. The relevant portion of it reads as follows:

"1. Detention under the orders of the competent authority will be considered as imprisonment.

2. Period of normal remission upto one month will be treated as part of actual imprisonment.

3. In the case of a trial ending in conviction, under trial period will be counted towards actual imprisonment suffered.

4. Broken period of imprisonment will be totalled up for computing the qualifying period.

(b) A person who remained underground for more than six months provided he was:

1. a proclaimed offender: or

2. one on whom an award for arrest/ head was announced: or

3. one for whose detention order was issued but not served.

(c) A person interned in his home or externed from his district provided the period of internment / externment was six months or more…."

The main clause 4(a) speaks of imprisonment only. It does not specify whether it should be as convict or as under trial prisoner. Going by the plain meaning of the words, the petitioners are eligible for pension.

4. But, relying on clause 3 of the explanation, the appellant has taken the stand that under trial period cannot be counted. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the explanation, in fact, dilutes the thrust of the main provision providing for six months imprisonment. Other forms of suffering and incarceration in connection with the freedom struggle are also deemed to be imprisonment for the purpose of minimum imprisonment required as per the main provision. Explanation 3 only says that in cases ending in conviction the imprisonment as under trial prisoner and as convict, can be clubbed together to reckon the total period of six months. It does not mean that if the entire detention is as under trail prisoner, the same has to be excluded. If that was the intention, the same would have been explicitly stated. The interpretation adopted by the appellants cannot be correct, in view of clause 4(b) of the Explanation. The said provision says