ORDER : Ashok Bhan, J. The State of Chhattisgarh and another have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 1-5-2002 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur allowing Writ Petition No. 450 of 1996 and directing the appellant to grant freedom fighters' pension to Dau Niranjan Lal Gupta, Respondent 1 herein. The High Court has further directed the appellants to forward a proposal for awarding "samman" to the respondent to the Central Government which in turn would take a requisite decision on the proposal within two months from the date of receipt of the proposal. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are: Respondent 1 submitted an application for grant of freedom fighters' pension. Along with the application he submitted certificates of freedom fighters Kejuram Chandrakar and Raghunandan Prasad Singhrol certifying to the effect that Respondent 1 had remained underground for a period of one year during the Quit India Movement. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Durg sent his report dated 23-3-1989 to the Collector, Durg stating therein that there was no record available in Police Station, Durg to show that warrants of arrest had been issued against Respondent 1. The Deputy Commissioner forwarded his report to the Committee appointed for the purpose. The Committee after taking into consideration the reports submitted by the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner held that Respondent 1 was not entitled to the grant of freedom fighters' pension. The respondent's case for grant of freedom fighters' pension (Rajya Samman Nidhi) was, accordingly, rejected. The order of rejection was duly communicated to the respondent. 4. Aggrieved against the rejection of request for grant of pension, Respondent 1 filed WP No. 450 of 1996 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. On 1-11-2000, separate State of Chhattisgarh was formed and since Respondent 1 was a resident of Durg which forms part of the new State of Chhattisgarh, Writ Petition No. 450 of 1996 was transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. 5. The High Court by the impugned order dated 1-5-2002 allowed the writ petition and has directed the appellants to pass orders and grant freedom fighters' pension to Respondent 1. 6. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 7. 5. The High Court by the impugned order dated 1-5-2002 allowed the writ petition and has directed the appellants to pass orders and grant freedom fighters' pension to Respondent 1. 6. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 7. For the grant of pension to a freedom fighter, the State Government has framed Rules known as "M.P. Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972" (hereinafter referred to as the Freedom Fighters Pension Rules, 1972). Rules 2(kha) and 2(kha)(8), which are relevant for the present case, are reproduced below: "2. (kha) Freedom fighter means that that person and in which following persons are included: * * * (8) Those who have remained underground but have not suffered imprisonment if they were declared as (1) offender, (2) such person for the arrest of whom award was declared but they were not arrested, or (3) such person for whom detention orders were issued but were not served upon. * * * Explanation 4.? If any soldier cannot produce the jail record or other official proof relating to his participation in the freedom struggle in any manner due to non-availability then the certificate by any famous freedom fighter, soldier of his district or nearby district which is duly attested by the person or ex-Member of Parliament or Legislature Assembly will be accepted. For the attestation, the Member of Parliament of (sic) the Legislature Assembly must know the attested fighter personally." 8. The appellants in its counter-affidavit filed in the High Court had taken a categorical stand that no warrant had been issued against Respondent 1. It was pointed out that Respondent 1 did not file any document to show that he participated in the freedom movement in the year 1942 or was sent to jail or any such warrant of arrest was issued. The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that Respondent 1 did not fulfil the conditions laid down under Rule 2(kha)(8). It is not the case of Respondent 1 that he is covered by sub-clauses (1) or (2)?. So far as sub-clause (3) of the Rules is concerned, Respondent 1 had not set up his claim in the writ petition that any detention order was issued against him. He did not produce any jail record or official record relating to detention order. So far as sub-clause (3) of the Rules is concerned, Respondent 1 had not set up his claim in the writ petition that any detention order was issued against him. He did not produce any jail record or official record relating to detention order. Two certificates issued by the freedom fighters Kejuram Chandrakar and Raghunandan Prasad Singhrol have not stated that any detention order in respect of Respondent 1 was ever issued due to which he had to remain underground. In fact, in the certificates of these two freedom fighters, columns relating to material particulars had been left blank. 9. Those who fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 2(kha) are entitled to receive the freedom fighters' pension under the Rules. Respondent 1 was not entitled to the grant of freedom fighters' pension as he did not fulfil the criteria laid down in Rule 2(kha)(8). The High Court failed to consider that Respondent 1 is not entitled to the grant of freedom fighters' pension as he did not fulfil the eligibility conditions mentioned in Rule 2(kha)(8). The High Court has also misread the letter of the Superintendent of Police dated 23-3-1989 to mean that in 1942 warrant was issued against Respondent 1 from Police Station, Durg and on the advice of his friends, Respondent 1 had gone underground and remained underground for about a year. This is a total misreading of the said letter as the said letter does not state any such fact. The High Court committed an error in directing the State to grant the benefit of freedom fighters' pension simply on the ground that Respondent 1 is a poet who had written patriotic poems during the freedom struggle. That alone is not a sufficient ground for grant of pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Rules, 1972. 10. Another factor which needs to be mentioned is that the earlier application filed by Respondent 1 for grant of freedom fighters' pension was rejected by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 30-12-1998. In view of the fact that his application had been rejected earlier, the second application for grant of freedom fighters' pension was not maintainable. 11. 10. Another factor which needs to be mentioned is that the earlier application filed by Respondent 1 for grant of freedom fighters' pension was rejected by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 30-12-1998. In view of the fact that his application had been rejected earlier, the second application for grant of freedom fighters' pension was not maintainable. 11. In our considered view, the High Court fell in error in accepting the writ petition and in directing the appellants to grant the freedom fighters' pension simply on the ground that Respondent 1 is a poet who had written patriotic poems during the freedom struggle. That by itself is not sufficient for grant of freedom fighters' pension under the Rules. 12. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed; the order impugned before us is set aside and the application filed by Respondent 1 for grant of freedom fighters' pension is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.