Judgment S.K. Homchaudhuri, J. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners' case is that they are political sufferers and in connection with freedom movement they were confined to Jail by the British Government for different periods, which are stated in paragraph 11 of the petition as follows :- (i) Petitioner Palakdhari Singh was confined in jail in connection with freedom movement from 4.11.1942 to 4.3.1943 in Patna Camp Jail. (ii) Petitioner Kamleshwar Singh was confined in jail in connection with• freedom movement from November, 1942 to 31.3.1943 in Patna Camp Jail. (iii) Petitioner Khalipha Paswan was confined in jail in connection with freedom movement from November, 1942 to 31.3.1943 in Patna Camp Jail. (iv) Petitioner Ratan Singh was confined in jail in connection with freedom movement from November, 1942 to March, 1943, in Patna Camp Jail. They made application for pension to the Central Government on different dates (copies of which are annexed as Annexure 5 series) for grant of pension under the Scheme of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. The records concerned not being available in the jail, they submitted certificates granted by a co-prisoner, namely, Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh along with their applications in support of their claim. According to the petitioners, they fulfilled all the requisite conditions and furnished all papers required for the grant of pension under the said Scheme and that after proper enquiry, their applications were forwarded by the Bihar Rajya Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Pramarshdatri Samittee, recommending their cases. However, Respondent no. 1, by orders (contained in Annexures 6 series) passed in the year 1983, rejected the petitioners' applications on the ground that the co-prisoner's certificates were not acceptable to the Government, without stating any reasons. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this court in this petition. 2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent no. 1, at paragraph no. 4, it has been contended as follows:- "4.....According to the provisions of the Swatantrata Sainik Sam man Pension Scheme, persons who had suffered a minimum period of six months' imprisonment in connection with the freedom struggle are amongst those considered eligible for Central pension on furnishing evidence from official records in support of imprisonment. 1, at paragraph no. 4, it has been contended as follows:- "4.....According to the provisions of the Swatantrata Sainik Sam man Pension Scheme, persons who had suffered a minimum period of six months' imprisonment in connection with the freedom struggle are amongst those considered eligible for Central pension on furnishing evidence from official records in support of imprisonment. However, in cases where Court and Jail records are not available or had been destroyed after the prescribed period of preservation, a sitting or former Legislator who had suffered imprisonment during the freedom struggle can issue co-prisoner certificates to freedom fighters applying for. Central pension for the period of his coprisonership with them. As mentioned in above paragraphs Co-Prisoner Certificate issued by such certifiers who fulfil the requisite criteria are accepted for the purpose of grant of Central pension. Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh, who is an Ex-MLA had issued co-prisoner certificates to some freedom fighters and his certificates were accepted by the Government arid pension sanctioned. A complaint was received by the Government in April, 1983 that some certifiers including Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh were issuing coprisoner certificates to persons indiscriminately. The case was referred to the Intelligence agency for verification. The Intelligence Agency in their report intimated that Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh, resident of Jahanabad town, is also learnt to have issued many such certificates to freedom fighters based on his memory and on the recommendations of other freedom fighters. The case was examined and the Government decided not to accept the co- prisoner certificates issued by Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh in future. In view of the decision taken, cases based on the co-prisoner certificates issued by Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh were rejected afterwards. The four cases referred to in the writ petition were accordingly rejected by the Government. Non-acceptance of certificates for one reason or the other is the prerogative of the Govt. and no correspondence is made on this issue with any individual, either certifier or freedom fighter. While communicating rejection on this ground, evidence not found acceptable, is indicated as the reason for rejection." 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India and the learned Standing Counsel no. 2 for the Respondents no. 2 and 3. 4. While communicating rejection on this ground, evidence not found acceptable, is indicated as the reason for rejection." 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India and the learned Standing Counsel no. 2 for the Respondents no. 2 and 3. 4. Learned counsel for tile petitioners submits that it is not disputed that Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh was freedom-fighter and is an Ex-MLA and some freedom-fighters have got pension from the Central Government on the basis of the co-prisoner certificates of Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh. The Government did not make it known that the certificate granted by Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh would not be accepted for grant of pension' under the scheme. The cases of the petitioners are genuine and they submitted their co-prisoner certificates of Ex-MLA, which under the Scheme, are acceptable. No reason has also been stated in tile impugned orders why the certificates of Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh were not acceptable to Respondent no. 1. Had it been known to the petitioners that the co-prisoner-certificates of Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh would not be accepted they could have obtained certificates of other co-prisoners and submitted the same in support of their claims. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India submits that Respondent no. 1 having decided not to accept the co-prisoner-certificate of Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh for cogent reasons, the claims of the petitioners were rightly rejected, which were based on such certificates. 6. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that their claim ought not have been closed in view of the fact that the Government of India, Ministry of Horne Affairs, decided not to accept tile co-prisoner-certificates of Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh for some reasons; inasmuch as that decision was not known to tile public, including the petitioners. Had there been no decision not to accept the certificates of Shri Sheo Bhajan Singh, the petitioners, in all probabilities, would have been granted pension under the scheme. As such, I am of the opinion that instead of closing their cases, Respondent no. 1 ought to have given another chance to the petitioners to produce other acceptable documents in support of their claim. 7. As such, I am of the opinion that instead of closing their cases, Respondent no. 1 ought to have given another chance to the petitioners to produce other acceptable documents in support of their claim. 7. For the reasons stated above, I allow this petition with following directions :- (i) The petitioners may submit any other cogent materials; such as certificates from other co-prisoners in support of their claims stating the facts in brief through the Bihar Rajya Swatantrata Sainik Sam man Pension Pramarshdatri Samittee within a period of three months from today before the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,' Freedom Fighters Division, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. (ii) The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Horne Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi, shall consider the case of the petitioners after receipt of their applications afresh and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt thereof. (iii) In case the petitioners' claims are rejected after considering the same afresh, a speaking order stating the reason for rejection of their claims should be passed. (iv) No effect shall be given to the impugned orders (as contained in Annexures 6 series) rejecting the petitioners' claims. (v) In the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to cost.