Order The present writ application is directed against the order dated 28th August, 1992, as contained in Annexure 18, whereby and where under the claim of the petitioner for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension under the scheme of the Central Government has been rejected on the sole ground that his name did not appear in Court Case G.R. No. 649/42 on which he had claimed the grant of pension. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in fact, the petitioner was made accused in two criminal cases bearing G.R. No. 649 of 1942 (State v. Janki Raman Mishra and others) and G.R. No. 632 of 1942 (State v. Bindeshwari Singh and others) of the then Darbhanga district due to his participation in the freedom movement during the year 1942. 3. A counter affidavit has been tiled on behalf of the Union of India and its Officers (respondents no. 1 to 3). From paragraph 5 of the said counter affidavit it appears that the State Government has also recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of the said pension on the basis of Non-availability of Jail Record Certificate (NARC) of G.R. No. 649/42 and 632/42 and Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) granted by the persons mentioned therein. From the said paragraph it appears that the case of the petitioner was rejected not only on the ground that his name did not find place in the record of G.R. 649/42 but also on other grounds, However, in the either counter affidavit, nothing has been mentioned about the claim of the petitioner being an accused in G.R. No. 632/42. Further, I find from the statement made in the counter affidavit that the claim of the petitioner has also been rejected on the ground that the Personal Knowledge Certificates produced by him, were not acceptable in the light of the provisions contained in the Scheme. 4. Mrs. Renuka Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, submits that, in fact, in regard to the Personal Knowledge Certificates produced by the petitioner, he was informed about the same as is evident from Annexures 10 and 12 and the petitioner was required to produce the Personal Knowledge Certificates by a renowned freedom fighter as is required under the provisions of the Scheme. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner after receipt of the aforementioned information from the Central Government sent another certificate granted by one Kulanand Vaidik and that was verified by the Central Government. 6. From Para 5 of the counter affidavit I find that the certificate granted by Kulanand Vaidik was not accepted as he did not give the reason for petitioner's absconsion in the same. However, from the impugned order, contained in Annexure 18, I find that nothing is mentioned about the Personal Knowledge Certificates produced by the petitioner. 7. By now it is well settled that the reason mentioned in the impugned order cannot to allowed to be supplemented by way of affidavits. 8. However, as it appears that even the claim of the petitioner for being an accused in G.R. No. 632/42 has not at all been considered by the Central Government, in my opinion, the order, contained in Annexure 18, cannot be sustained and it is, accordingly, quashed and the matter is remitted back to respondents no. 1 to 3 for fresh consideration and disposal of the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law by a reasoned order. 9. However, as from the counter affidavit, a copy of which has been served on the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that there are other infirmities also for considering the case of the petitioner for grant of pension, in my opinion, if the petitioners so desires, he may remove those infirmities by sending fresh certificates and complying with other requirements within a period of one month, where after the Central Government shall reexamine the claim of the petitioner and pass fresh order disposing of the claim of the petitioner by giving reasons in accordance with law within a period of one month of the receipt of the fresh materials from the petitioner.