Judgment 1. One of the grounds upon which a person is entitled to freedom fighters pension, as has been mentioned in Clause (3)(e) of the explanation appended to Clause 4 of the scheme, is as follows: "A person who became permanently incapacitated during firing or lathi charge." 2. A plain reading of this sentence would make it amply clear that the required essential condition is permanent incapacitation of the person by reason of firing or lathi charge. In R. Narayan vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 746 , the Supreme Court felt that it may not be necessary for the person to be permanently incapacitated, but it would suffice if one of his limbs has been permanently incapacitated. In the order dated 27th March, 2000 rendered by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7935/ 1997 filed by the petitioner earlier challenging the decision of the Union of India not to grant pension to him, this Court felt that the decision of the Central Government rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had suffered only 10% disability or incapacitation and not total one must be held to be illegal and arbitrary. This Court therefore further expanded the scope of the requirement and held that when a person is incapable of moving one of his legs to the extent of 100% but can move the same only upto 90% and that capability has reached permanency, it is his permanent incapacitation within the meaning of the Clause mentioned above, and remitted back the matter to the Government for reconsideration. 3. Without preferring an appeal against the order and permitting the said observation of the Court to reach finality, the Central Government has passed the impugned order and therein has contended that in view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioner is not entitled to pension. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government has contended that in the case before the Supreme Court, the person lost his one eye and the loss of one eye was total and though he could see through the other eye, the Supreme Court felt that it was a permanent incapacitation of one eye and accordingly, since total or permanent incapacitation of one eye was found as a fact, the Supreme Court held that the person concerned was entitled to pension. 4. 4. It must be kept in mind that the Supreme Court held that permanent incapacitation is the requirement and not permanent total incapacitation. As aforesaid, the Supreme Court felt that the required permanent incapacitation may be to a limb and not necessarily to the totality of the human being. This Court, as aforesaid, in the previous judgment held that the permanent incapacitation, even of a limb, should be treated to be a permanent incapacitation and not the degree of the permanent incapacitation. In other words, this Court held that when the petitioner permanently lost his power to move 100% of his one leg and was capable of only moving 90% of the same, and that having reached finality, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner . on the ground that the petitioner has suffered" 10% disability or incapacitation is illegal and arbitrary. This judgment being binding on the Central Government and the Central Government having not preferred an appeal against that judgment of this Court, is bound thereby and is incapable of contending to the contrary. 5. In such view of the matter, the contention as raised in the impugned order being contrary to the pronouncement of this Court is set aside with a further direction upon the Central Government to reconsider the matter afresh as quickly as possible but not later than 12 weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the concerned Secretary of the Union of India. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.