JUDGMENT K.C. Sood, J.—Petitioner Kaushalaya Kanga, widow of late Shri Devi Ram Kanga of Bilaspur town prays for : (a) declaration that husband of the petitioner was the freedom fighter and the petitioner, therefore, is entitled for the grant of pension under the Swatantarta Sainani Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, for the date of her application to the Authorities; (b) the order dated 5th March, 1999 (Annexure-PG) passed by respondent No. 1, being bad, be quashed; (c) respondent No. 1 be directed to pay arrears of pension to the petitioner along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the application; and (d) any other relief which the Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Shri Devi Ram Kanga was a freedom fighter and she, in her capacity as his widow, is entitled for the pension under the Swatantarta Sainani Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, from the date of the application filed by her husband for the grant of pension along with interest at 12% per annum. 3. According to the petitioner, her husband actively participated in the Praja Mandal Movement during ^the years 1946 to 1946. The Central Government announced Scheme for the grant of pension to freedom fighter in the year 1972, (1972 Scheme was in the meanwhile substituted by Swatantarta Sainani Samman Pension Scheme, 1980), under which Scheme the husband of the petitioner filed an application for the grant of the pension. The application was rejected on 19th September, 1975 by respondent No. 1. The husband of the petitioner represented on 21st April, 1976. The cLalm was once again rejected by respondent No. 1 on 15th June, 1976. In the meanwhile, husband of the petitioner expired and the petitioner sent a representation on 27th December, 1996. This representation too was rejected on 8th October, 1997. Dis-satisfied by the repeated rejection of the cLalm, petitioner filed a petition (CWP No. 504/1998). This petition was decided on November 10, 1998, with the following directions to respondent No. 1: "The first respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh if need be, by giving opportunity to the petitioner through her representative if so desired and pass final orders within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This petition was decided on November 10, 1998, with the following directions to respondent No. 1: "The first respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh if need be, by giving opportunity to the petitioner through her representative if so desired and pass final orders within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the stand taken by the second respondent that no application at any point of time was made to the State Government for any cLalm even under the State Scheme, we are unable to countenance the cLalm of the petitioner for relief against the second respondent. If the petitioner so desires to pursue any cLalm before the second respondent the rejection of the petition in the case shall no^ stand in the way of the petitioner". 4. It may be noticed that respondent No. 1 in writ petition No. 504/ 1998 was the Union Government and respondent No. 2 was the State Government. 5. Respondent No. 1, Union of India, in compliance to the directions of this Court, noted above, communicated to the petitioner that her cLalm has been rejected as the cLalmed suffering of her late husband were not covered under the provisions of Swatantarta Sainani Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. 6. The letter addressed to the petitioner conveying rejection of her cLalm for Swatantarta Sainani Samman Pension (Annexure PG) reads: "No. 52/cc/401/98-FF(NZ) Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya Lok Nayak Bhawan. Khan Market, New Delhi-110 003 Dated the March, 1999 Smt. Kaushalya Kanga. Wd/o Shri Devi Ram Kanga, R/O Sector 2, New ftlaspur Town, 5 Mar, 1999 District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Subject: Implementation of Honourable Himachal Pradeshs High Court decision dated 10.11.1998 in CWP No. 504 of 1998. Madam, I am directed to refer to the above mentioned judgment and to say that as directed by the Honourable Court the case has been examined afresh. It has been found that your late husband in the affidavit dated 14.7.1975 cLalmed as under:— That due to my political activities my freedom was banned through a close and strict watch of police upto 12th October, 1948. My shop and house were also kept guarded secretly by the State CID. That I was a partner in the well known firm of Messrs. My shop and house were also kept guarded secretly by the State CID. That I was a partner in the well known firm of Messrs. Atma Brothers Bilaspur, which were the main suppliers of goods to all the departments by the State Government including the palace the course of my livelihood. That due to my participation in the said movement all the supplies were stopped by the then State Government and by this my business was totally ruined. 2. Assuming and not admitted the above cLalm shows that your late husband was not interned rather only watch was kept over his activities by the police. The relationship of shopkeeper and a customer existed between your late husband and the customers including as cLalmed by your late husband by the State. It is the sweet will of the customer as to where from he would like to purchase and simply because a purchaser does not purchase an article from a particular shop cannot make the shopkeeper to grouse for non purchase of items from him or that to make it a ground to cLalm Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (SSSP). 3. Thus, neither keeping watch over the activities of a particular person by the police nor non purchase of item from a shop are the sufferings recognized under the SSSP Scheme for grant of pension. Thus, your late husbands cLalm is not covered under the sufferings which are recognized for SSSP. 4. As mentioned above since the cLalmed suffering of your husband is not relevant to the SSSP Scheme and the certificates appended with the writ petition are not required to be seen at all still it is mentioned that Shri Sant Ram Advocate mentioned the cLalm of your late husband as loss of livelihood whereas the certifiers S/Shri Sita Ram and Narottamdutt Shastri mentioned the cLalm as internment. Thus, the certifiers themselves have certified contradictory cLalms for the same period. 5. In the personal hearing which was granted en your request to your son on 1.3.1999, your son submitted the copies of the Judgments of Honourable Himachal Pradesh High Court in respect of the following persons. S/Shri a. Jagannath Sharma. b. Sahaj Ram. c. Prabhu Ram Sharma. d. Lekh Ram Bhardwaj. e. Sukh Lal. The above judgments have been gone through and it is found that in the case of Shri Jagannath Sharma the cLalmed suffering was internment. S/Shri a. Jagannath Sharma. b. Sahaj Ram. c. Prabhu Ram Sharma. d. Lekh Ram Bhardwaj. e. Sukh Lal. The above judgments have been gone through and it is found that in the case of Shri Jagannath Sharma the cLalmed suffering was internment. I the case of Shri Sahaj Ram the cLalmed suffering was underground and in the cases of S/Shri Prabhu Ram Sharma, Lekh Ram Bhardwaj and Sukh Lal, the cLalmed suffering was externment. Thus, the above judgments have no relevance at all to the case of your late husband. 6. In view of the above and particularly that the cLalmed suffering of your late husband is not covered under the provisions of SSSP Scheme 1980 or rather the cLalmed suffering is beyond the jurisdiction of the SSSP Scheme, 1980, the case is considered as not eligible to SSSR Yours faithfully, Sd/- (D.N. KATARIA) UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Copy by Registered Post to: 1. The Chief Secretary^ General Administration Department, Government of Himachal Pradash, Shimla. Sd/- (D.M. KATARIA) UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA". 7. It may be noticed that the Under Secretary to the Government of India while disposing of the representation of the petitioner took a view that mere watch, on the activities of the husband of the petitioner, by then Raja of Bilaspur would not amount to internment and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of Swatantarta Sainani Samman Pension. It is admitted position that under the modified Scheme of 1980 a freedom fighter is entitled to Samman Pension if he has suffered imprisonment/ abscondment/internment/externment for six months against an executive order of the then Government in connection with the freedom struggle. The applicant who cLalms internment or externment has to submit, in support of the cLalm a copy of the order of externment or internment or any other corroboratory documentary evidence. In case, such evidence is not available, certificates from prominent freedom fighters who had themselves undergone imprisonment for two years or more are sufficient in support of the sufferings of internment or externment. This position is admitted in para-5 of the rejoinder. It reads: "5. The applicant cLalming internment or externment have to submit a copy of order of externment or internment or any other corroboratory documentary evidence. This position is admitted in para-5 of the rejoinder. It reads: "5. The applicant cLalming internment or externment have to submit a copy of order of externment or internment or any other corroboratory documentary evidence. In case, such evidence is not available, certificates from prominent freedom fighters who had themselves undergone imprisonment for 2 years or more could be submitted in support of the suffering of internment or externment. The certifier in that case should belong to the same administrative unit before re-organisation of the state as of the applicant, i.e. the area of operation must be the same. If the certifier v is found to be involved in indiscriminate certificate, such certificates submitted by the cLalmants may not be accepted by the Government of India, Further, as per the provisions of the Scheme and the instructions issued thereunder, Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, Pension can be sanctioned only after receipt of the State Governments verification report and recommendations". 8. In the present case, the petitioner annexed with her representation two certificates, one from Sant Ram, Advocate, who was then Home Minister-cum-SP in the State of Bilaspur (Annexure-PC). This certificate certifies that due to the active part in the freedom movement late Shri Devi Ram Kanga was put "under strict watch of the Police and he lost his means of livelihood". The other certificate is issued by Sita Ram, the other Freedom Fighter, having undergone imprisonment for two years. In this certificate it is unambiguously stated that Devi Ram Kanga, husband of the petitioner, was kept under strict police watch and he was not allowed to go out of the house, meet any Praja Mandal worker and he remained in internment from 1946 to 1948 till the accession of the State of Bilaspur in to the Indian Union. 9. Certificate Annexure-PD reads : "CERTIFICATE" "It is to be certified that I personally know Sh. Devi Ram Kanga S/o Sh. Krishan Dayal R/o New Bilaspur Town District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. To my personal knowledge. He was an active Worker of erstwhile Bilaspur State Praja Mandal during 1946/ 1948. The Raja of Bilaspur kept Sh. Devi Ram under strict police watch and he was not allowed to go out of the house meet any Praja Mandal worker. He was beaten severely for so many times. Thus Sh. To my personal knowledge. He was an active Worker of erstwhile Bilaspur State Praja Mandal during 1946/ 1948. The Raja of Bilaspur kept Sh. Devi Ram under strict police watch and he was not allowed to go out of the house meet any Praja Mandal worker. He was beaten severely for so many times. Thus Sh. Devi Ram JCanga remained in internment since 1946 to 1948 till the accession of Bilaspur State in to Indian Union. Sh. Devi Ram Kanga was forced to suffer heavily during the Praja Mandal Movement. He in all cases deserves the benefit of Centre and State Pensions. Sita Ram Dated 13.3.1996 Freedom fighter Having undergone Imop for 2 year Sd/- Patta Mehlog formerly District Shimla". 10. Now/ expression "internment means "detainment or confinement of a persons suspected of disloyalty in specially designated areas". (See: Blacks Law Dictionary). The New Oxford Dictionary defines, "internment" to mean "confinement of a person especially for political or military reasons". 11. A perusal of certificate (Annexure-PD) given by Shri Sita Ram, Freedom Fighter, who himself admittedly had undergone imprisonment for more than two years very clearly indicates that Shri Devi Ram Kanga, the husband of the petitioner, was under strict police watch and was not allowed to go out of the house to meet any other Freedom Fighter which clearly shows that Shri Devi Ram Kanga was confined and not allowed to move freely on account of his participation in the freedom movement launched by Praja Mandal. Certificate issued by the then Home Minister of Bilaspur State also shows that the petitioner was confined, as strict watch of police was kept on him during the period from 1946 to 1948. 12. The respondent Union of India, in view of the certificates, was bound to consider the cLalm of the petitioner as a widow of the freedom fighter. 13. The Apex Court in Gut dial Singh v. Union of India and others, (2001) 8 SCC 8, has emphasised the need for dealing with the cLalm of freedom fighters with sympathy and not insisting on the proof beyond reasonable doubt. The approach, observed the Apex Court, should be to uphold the entitlement by applying the principle of probability so as to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of the freedom fighter. 14. The approach, observed the Apex Court, should be to uphold the entitlement by applying the principle of probability so as to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of the freedom fighter. 14. It is true that this Court exercising writ jurisdiction does not sit in judgment over the decision of the Union Government as an appellate authority. The High Court will also not enter into re-appreciation of evidence and reverse the findings arrived at by the Government unless they are perverse. 15. In the present case, the concerned authority has not taken trouble to go through the certificates, referred to above, annexed by the petitioner with her application. Particularly, the certificates issued by Shri Sita Ram, Freedom Fighter. (Annexure-PD) and Shri Sant Ram, Former Home Minister of State of Bilaspur (Annexure-PC). There is not a whisper or a murmur about these certificates in the communication sent to the petitioner rejecting her cLalm. Had the concerned authority spared little time to go through these certificates, the authority would have found that the certificates issued by Shri Sita Ram and Shri Sant Ram meet the requirement of the Swatantarta Sainani Samman Pension Scheme, as noticed above. 16. The order rejecting the cLalm of the petitioner, to say least, is bereft of any objective consideration. The final orders have been passed by the authority without application of mind and without considering important material on record in terms of the certificates referred to above. 17. Learned Counsel for the Union of India could not show from the records that the certificates were considered by the concerned authority nor is their any mention about it in the return of the respondent No. 1, Union of India. 18. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned Additional Centre Government Standing Counsel, relying upon West Bengal Freedom Fighters Organization v. Union of India and others, JT 2004 (7) SC 327 and State of Maharashtra and others v. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar, (2004)6 SCC 584, will contend that this Court would not re-appreciate the evidence in its writ jurisdiction. 19. In West Bengal Freedom Fighters Organization, all the Members of the association applied for pension. The case set up was that their applications were not being processed for the grant of pension. 19. In West Bengal Freedom Fighters Organization, all the Members of the association applied for pension. The case set up was that their applications were not being processed for the grant of pension. The Apex Court directed the State of West Bengal to appoint a State Advisory Committee, if not already appointed, and directed the Committee to verify the cases of the Members of the petitioner Association and communicate its opinion to the Court. The affidavit was filed by the State of West Bengal saying that the State Advisory Committee had considered the cases of all the Members of the Association and rejected all the applications. The Apex Court directed the State Government to file a better affidavit giving full particulars regarding verification. An additional affidavit was filed by the State Government annexing minutes of the State Advisory Committee, wherein it was recorded that the verification report from the DIG, IB/SP, DIB of the relevant districts was obtained and it was found from the records available that the cLalms of the Members of the Association were not corroborated by the records. The Apex Court asked the Committee to supply details of each applicant which lead to the rejection of the cLalm. An additional affidavit filed along with the chart giving the names of the applicants, their cLalm, the report placed before the Committee and the views of the Committee on that report. It was found that none of the applicants had produced the required documents under the Scheme. All of them relied on certificates from co-freedom fighters without having produced NARCs as required under the Scheme at that time. 20. Based on these reports, the State Advisory Committee and the State Government opined that none of the applicants was eligible for the grant of pension. It is in this background that the Apex Court observed that the Committee came to the conclusion on the basis of the available material and such a decision cannot be said to be either perverse or one which no reasonable man could arrive at and refuse to interfere. The ratio of this case is of no assistance to the respondent Union of India. 21. The ratio of this case is of no assistance to the respondent Union of India. 21. In the present case, the respondent No. 1 did not consider the two certificates, one issued by a freedom fighter who had undergone imprisonment for more than two years and another issued by the then Home Minister of Bilaspur State as discussed earlier. Similarly, the ratio in Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar is also of no assistance to the respondent Union of India. 22. The Apex Court in Ragnunath Gajanan Waingankar held that the High Court in exercising writ jurisdiction does not sit in the judgment over the decision of the State Government like an appellate authority and cannot re-appreciate the evidence and reverse the findings arrived at by the State Government unless they are perverse. In Mukand Lal Bhandari and others v. Union of India and others, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 2, the Apex Court noticed that the claim itself mention the documents which are required to be produced before the Government and it is the function of the Government to scrutinize the documents. Ratio of this case too is of no assistance to the respondent Union of India. 23. This is a case where the respondent Union of India, so far petitioner is concerned, has failed to act in accordance with the Scheme. As already noticed, the two certificates referred to above, produced by the petitioner, clearly establish her eligibility to the pension under the Scheme. 24. The petitioner, in my view, for the reasons recorded above, is entitled to the pension under Swatantarta Sainani Samman Pension Scheme from the date of her representation i.e. 27th December, 1996. 25. The respondent Union of India is directed, by this writ in the nature of mandamus, to grant to the petitioner the benefit of the Scheme in accordance with the provisions thereof w.e.f. the date of her representation i.e. 27th December, 1996. No costs. Petition allowed.