BHASKAR BHATTATHARTA, J. ( 1 ) ALTHOUGH these two appeals were heard separately, as common questions are involved, we have decided to dispose of these two appeals by this common judgment. However, we will deal with the cases one after the other. ( 2 ) THIS mandamus-appeal is at the instance of the Union, of India and is directed against the order dated 16th August, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge thereby allowing a writ-application by directing the present appellant to release pension to the substituted respondent in terms of the sanction-order dated April 24, 1991. His Lordship further directed that all the arrears in terms of the order except for the period already released should be payable from the date of making of the application by the husband of the substituted respondent and all such arrears should be paid within six weeks from the date of the order impugned and that within the same period, the Central Government should issue necessary order for releasing the current pension to the petitioner. It was further ordered that all arrears should be paid to the petitioner with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the dates the amounts became due and payable till the date of actual payment. ( 3 ) THE present writ-application has a chequered career. ( 4 ) IN the year 1995, the husband of the respondent filed the writ-application thereby alleging that although claiming to be a freedom-fighter, he submitted the requisite application in the prescribed form requesting the Central Government to grant pension under the relevant scheme on july 30, 1981, as the relevant records concerning his sufferings were not available, he made request for passing the order on the basis of personal knowledge of the co-freedom-fighter having the requisite authority to issue certificate under the scheme in that behalf. It was further alleged that by an order dated July 29, 1986, the Central government rejected the application on the ground tht; the prayer of the original petitioner had not been recommended by the State Government. The matter was, however, agitated before the State Government that made the necessary enquiries and took the decision to recommend the case and consequently, the State Government recommended the case of the writ-petitioner on June 7, 1980. According to the writ-petitioner, the State government recommended the case of the writ-petitioner on June 7, 1980. The matter was, however, agitated before the State Government that made the necessary enquiries and took the decision to recommend the case and consequently, the State Government recommended the case of the writ-petitioner on June 7, 1980. According to the writ-petitioner, the State government recommended the case of the writ-petitioner on June 7, 1980. According to the writ-petitioner, after the State Government made the recommendation, the Central Government reopened the matter and after reconsideration of his case, decided 1 to sanction pension to him and such decision was taken on April 23, 1991. The petitioner was, accordingly, directed to submit the requisite documents for the release of pension but in spite of submission of thos e documents, the Central Government took no step to release the pension. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, the present writ-application was filed which was disposed of on June 21, 1995 by Samaresh Banerjea, J. thereby directing the Central Government to release the pension in favour of the original writ-petitioner with all arrears. ( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied, the Central Government filed a Special leave application before the Supreme Court of India and during the pendency of the application from October 2, 1994 to August, 1996 pension was actually paid to the original writ-petitioner but as, subsequently, the hon'ble Supreme Court granted stay of the order of the High Court, the same was stopped. ( 7 ) ULTIMATELY, b/y order dated July 31, 2003, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal preferred by the Central Government against the order dated june 21, 1995 and remanded the matter back to the High Court for rehearing after (giving an opportunity cf filing affidavit-in-opposition to the union of India. The Supreme Court kept all the points open. ( 8 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court, the union of India has filed affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply has also been filed by the writ-petitioner. It may be mentioned here that in tne meantime, the original writ-petitioner died and his widow has been substituted in his place who is now contesting the matter as respondent before us. ( 9 ) ULTIMATELY, the learned Single Judge has allowed such application with a finding that the Union of India could not place any material before the court indicating the reason why in spite of earlier sanction of the pension, the same was stopped. ( 9 ) ULTIMATELY, the learned Single Judge has allowed such application with a finding that the Union of India could not place any material before the court indicating the reason why in spite of earlier sanction of the pension, the same was stopped. ( 10 ) BEING dissatisfied, the Union of India has come up with the present mandamus-appeal. ( 11 ) MRS.-QURAISHI, the teamed advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India, has, at the very first instance, submitted before us that if we go through the application filed by the original writ-petitioner along with the certificate produced by him, it would appear that on the basis of averments made in the application itself, the petitioner was not entitled to get such benefit. ( 12 ) MRS. Quraishi submits that it is the definite case of the original writ-petitioner that he was never imprisoned nor was he ever arrested but he went underground due to movement of Quit-India from October 1942 to December 1943 and in support of his contentions he relied upon the certificate given by one Rabindra Nath Giri, a freedom-fighter, who certified that he himself was imprisoned for more than five years due to involvement in freedom-fight and according to him, the writ-petitioner went underground on and from 2nd October, 1942 to December 1943. Mrs. Quraishi points out that from his certificate itself it appears that he was himself in Jail from 2nd October, 1942 till 25th July, 1944 and as such, he cannot certify that another person really went underground from 2nd October, 1942. According to Mrs. Quraishi, it was the duty of the writ-petitioner to disclose what happened from 1st January, 1944, the day from which he ceased to remain underground. According to her, unless the writ-petitioner discloses such fact, his case that he remained underground due to issue of search warrant and warrant of arrest as certified by Rabindra Nath Giri cannot be accepted. In this connection, mrs. Quraishi, relied upon a decision of a Single Judge of this court (one of us) in the case of Sakti Bala Samanta vs. Union of India reported in (2000)1 CLJ 572. ( 13 ) MRS. Quraishi submits that as the relevant records of Police Stations of Midnapore district for the relevant period are not available, the writ-petitioner had taken an opportunity to lodge a false claim. ( 13 ) MRS. Quraishi submits that as the relevant records of Police Stations of Midnapore district for the relevant period are not available, the writ-petitioner had taken an opportunity to lodge a false claim. She, therefore, submits that on the basis of averments made in the application itself, the writ-petitioner was not entitled to get any order of pension in accordance with the scheme formulated by the Union of India. ( 14 ) MR. Mukherjee; the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioner, however, has opposed the aforesaid contention of Mrs. Quraishi and submits that the Supreme Court directed the Union of India to file affidavit-in-opposition but in the affidavit-in-opposition, no material was disclosed alleging even the points now sought to be raised. by Mrs. Quraishi and as such, this court should not accept the aforesaid contention. Mr. Mukherjee submits that in the fact of the present case the Union of India itself was satisfied with the case of the petitioner in the past and that is why sanctioned pension; but for reason best known to the Union of India, the same was stopped and as such, the learned single Judge rightly passed a direction for payment of pension in terms with the scheme. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. ( 15 ) MR. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state of West Bengal, however, supported Mrs. Quraishi and contended that the initial onus is upon the writ-petitioner to justify his claim but such initial onus was not even discharged. ( 16 ) THEREFORE, the only question that has fallen for determination in this mandamus-appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the Union of India to pay pension to the writ-peritioner simply because in the past Union of India decided to sanction such pension on the basis of recommendation of the State Government. ( 16 ) THEREFORE, the only question that has fallen for determination in this mandamus-appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the Union of India to pay pension to the writ-peritioner simply because in the past Union of India decided to sanction such pension on the basis of recommendation of the State Government. ( 17 ) BEFORE we proceed to consider the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that in the past, the State government as well as the Union of India accepted the case of the original writ-petitioner only because no material was available to contradict the certificate granted by a co-freedom-fighter who allegedly suffered imprisonment for five years and the scheme itself provided that in the absence of any material falsifying the claim of abscondence, such certificate was entertainable as a secondary evidence. ( 18 ) THE learned Trial Judge proceeded on the footing that it is for the union of India and the State Government to produce materials showing that the previous decision was wrong and unless any evidence was adduced before court showing that there was reason for making deviation from the earlier conclusion, the same should be enforced. ( 19 ) IN our opinion, in a case of this nature, even after passing of an order sanctioning pension, if it is detected that the previous decision was erroneous for the fraud practised by the applicant or that the claim of the applicant was an inherently impossible one or that the previous decision was taken by the appropriate authority overlooking any of the essential requirements of the scheme, the Government is entitled to revoke the pension granted earlier through mistake. If there was genuine error on the part of the Government, an applicant cannot take advantage of the fault of the Government and insist on continuance of misuse of public money simply because a mistake was committed by the Government in the past. ( 20 ) WE, therefore, propose to consider whether the initial sanction of the pension was unjustified on the basis of materials on record as contended by Mrs. Quraishi. ( 20 ) WE, therefore, propose to consider whether the initial sanction of the pension was unjustified on the basis of materials on record as contended by Mrs. Quraishi. ( 21 ) IN our view, if a person comes forward with an absurd case supported by an evasive certificate not in conformity with the scheme authorising the grant of pension and such defect in the application or the certificate escaped the notice of the Government at the earlier stage, the applicant cannot take advantage of the mistake of the Government by raising the plea of estoppel by earlier erroneous decision or the principle of res judicata. An applicant for the freedom-fighter's pension should at all material times be answerable to any legitimate query of the Government justifying his claim, if occasion so arises. ( 22 ) THE underground suffering for a period of six months which is recognised as a ground for grant of the pension provides that the person should have gone underground only after he was wanted by the police for his activities relating to National Freedom Struggle. In other words, as the scheme specifically provides, the freedom-fighter should either be a proclaimed offender or a person on whom an award for arrest/head was announced or on whom detention order was issued but was not served; but voluntary abscondence for the causes other than the ones mentioned above will not make a person eligible -for pension. Furthermore, it must be shown that the applicant did not secure reprieve on account of any oral or written apology tendered by him. The liberalised pension scheme, however, provides that with effect from August 1, 1980, in the absence of official records because of their non-availability, the certificate issued by a certifier who had undergone a minimum imprisonment lor two years in connection with the National Freedom Struggle may be accepted as a proof of the fact of abscondence for the purpose of the said scheme. ( 23 ) THEREFORE by taking aid of the liberalised scheme, an applicant can insist on acceptance of a certificate by a freedom-fighter having the requisite eligibility as a secondary evidence in support of his claim if the official records are not available. But in a given circumstance, the central Government is entitled to reject such certificate if other contrary evidence is available falsifying the claim of the applicant or the contents of the certificate. But in a given circumstance, the central Government is entitled to reject such certificate if other contrary evidence is available falsifying the claim of the applicant or the contents of the certificate. Similarly, there may be cases where on the basis of the averment made in the application itself, the claim of the applicant may be shown to be apparently an absurd claim and in such cases, those applications deserve outright rejection notwithstanding the fact that those are supported by the certificates of co-freedom-fighters. ( 24 ) IN the case before us, the original writ-petitioner stated in his application that he remained underground due to the "movement of Quit india" from October 2, 1942 to December, 1945 but he did not mention in his application whether he was a proclaimed offender or one on whom an award for arrest/head was announced or whether he was one for whose detention order was issued but not served as required under the scheme in order to get the benefit of underground for more than six months. ( 25 ) A person is declared as a proclaimed offender by a court in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal procedure and is preceded by issue of a warrant and is consequent to abscondence or concealment of such person with an intention that such warrant cannot be executed. Such proclamation continues so long such person is not arrested. Such proclamation may, however, cease to have any effect if the criminal case in which such warrant was issued is ultimately dropped in the absence of any material against such person or reprieve is given to such person after acceptance of apology. ( 26 ) THUS, the original writ-petitioner himself having admitted in his application that he did not abscond any further from January 1, 1946 nor was he ever arrested, only conclusion that emerges out is that from January 1, 1946 there was neither any warrant nor any valid order of proclamation against him as the said case was dropped either because he was wrongly impleaded or due to tender, of apology by the petitioner, he was given reprieve. In either of the circumstances, the applicant was not entitled to get the pension. If the abscondence continued till January 15, 1947, the petitioner could successfully contend that due to independence of the country, the case was not proceeded with after August 15, 1947. In either of the circumstances, the applicant was not entitled to get the pension. If the abscondence continued till January 15, 1947, the petitioner could successfully contend that due to independence of the country, the case was not proceeded with after August 15, 1947. ( 27 ) THUS, the assertion of the original writ-petitioner that for involvement in the "movement of Quit-India" he remained underground and he ceased to remain underground from January 1, 1946 but was never arrested is an absurd story unless he was mistakenly involved in the criminal case or ' he was pardoned after acceptance of his apology. The averments of the original writ-petitioner in the application itself make him ineligible for the grant of pension as he never claimed to be a proclaimed offender nor did he assert that he was one on whom an award for arrest/head was announced or upon him any detention order was issued but not served. ( 28 ) THE next question is whether the application of the writ-petitioner was accompanied by a valid certificate given by a co-freedom-fighter in accordance with the scheme. ( 29 ) IN the instance case, the certificate has been given by one Rabindra nath Giri whose eligibility to grant of certificate has not been disputed. The certificate runs as follows : "i do hereby certify that Sri Tarendra Nath Pal, son a late chaitannya Pal, of Vill. Bar-Icchabari, P. O. Demarihat, P. S. Tamluk, dist. Midnapore joined the 'quit India Movement' in the year 1942 and worked under our guidance in Tamluk Thana. For this active participation and his subversive activities Tamluk Police started the case against Sri Tarendra Nath Pal. Search warrant and warrant of arrest were issued against him. According to my direction he went underground and remained underground from 02. 10. 1942 to December 1945. To the best of my knowledge and belief, he did not secure reprieve on account of any oral or written apology tendered by him. He also did not go underground voluntarily or from fear of arrest on account of his patriotic activities. He deserves Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension and Tamrapatra. " ( 30 ) IN our view, the said certificate is not in conformity with the requirement of the scheme. He also did not go underground voluntarily or from fear of arrest on account of his patriotic activities. He deserves Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension and Tamrapatra. " ( 30 ) IN our view, the said certificate is not in conformity with the requirement of the scheme. What has been certified is that the original writ-petitioner joined Quit India Movement in the year 1942 and worked under his guidance in Tamluk Thana and for his active participation and subversive activities, Tamluk Thana started a case against him and "search warrant and warrant of arest were issued against him. It was further certified that according to the direction of the certifier, the original writ-petitioner went underground and remained underground from october 2, 1942 to December, 1945. ( 31 ) THE scheme does not make a-freedom-fighter eligible for pension if he remained underground for more than six months for mere joining or involving in the "quit India Movement" in the year 1942 unless (a)it is shown that he was either declared as a proclaimed offender or (b) on whom an award for arrest/bead was announced or (c) whose detention order was issued but could not be served. Therefore, if a freedom fighter under the guidance of the certifier remained underground for years for joining Quit India Movement but it was not preceded by any of those three circumstances, he is not entitled to get pension under the said scheme. The aforesaid certificate merely stated that the "search warrant and warrant of arrest" were issued; against him but the writ petitioner himself did not claim that any case was registered against him nor did he mention any case-number in the application for pension. Moreover, abscondence as a result of issue of mere search warrant or warrant of arrest issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not sufficient for the entitlement of pension unless one comes within any of the three conditions as pointed out above. The certifier has certified something which the applicant himself did not claim in the application. Moreover, the certifies himself was arrested on July 25, 1944 and was acquitted on May 20, 1946; therefore, he could not certify that the original writ-petitioner was absconding till December, 1945. If a person himself is in jail, he cannot certify true to his knowledge whether another person at that point of time was really absconding or not. Moreover, the certifies himself was arrested on July 25, 1944 and was acquitted on May 20, 1946; therefore, he could not certify that the original writ-petitioner was absconding till December, 1945. If a person himself is in jail, he cannot certify true to his knowledge whether another person at that point of time was really absconding or not. If any such certificate is given, the same is either false or based on hearsay evidence. ( 32 ) MOREOVER, the certifier did not take the responsibility of his statement that the applicant did not secure reprieve on account of any oral or written apology by not certifying the statement as true to his knowledge. To qualify the certificate as "to the best of my knowledge and belief he did not secure reprieve" means that the certifier is not prepared to vouch for the veracity of such statement. ( 33 ) A certificate is the testimony given in writing to declare or verify the truth of something. Such element is absent in the above certificate in respect of some of the statements as mentioned above. ( 34 ) WE, thus, find that the applicant's statement that he remained underground till December, 1945 but was neither arrested on the following day when he surfaced out nor was the case against him dropped is an absurd one and as such, a certificate to that effect should not be accepted. ( 35 ) WE therefore, hold that the certificate given by Rabindra Nath Giri had not complied with the requirements of the scheme and the fact certified therein was otherwise absurd and it must be held that the application was not supported by. an appropriate certificate in accordance with the scheme. ( 36 ) AT this juncture Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioner submitted that neither the State Government nor the Central government having taken the aforesaid point in the affidavit-in-opposition and the State Government having recommended the case of the petitioner, cannot now contend before this court that such recommendation was wrongly given as submitted by the learned counsel for the state. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioner submitted that neither the State Government nor the Central government having taken the aforesaid point in the affidavit-in-opposition and the State Government having recommended the case of the petitioner, cannot now contend before this court that such recommendation was wrongly given as submitted by the learned counsel for the state. ( 37 ) IN the case before us, for the adjudication of the point now raised before this court, no new investigation of fact is necessary and such fact is apparent from the application of the writ-petitioner and the certificate of the co-freedom-fighter; therefore, without even using any affidavit, the state-respondent can obviously point out that on the basis os averments made in the writ-application itself supported by insufficient certificate, the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 38 ) WE are quite conscious of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh vs. Chief Commissioner reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court page 851, where it has been held by the Supreme court that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reason in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. It was further pointed out by the Apex Court that otherwise, an order bad in the beginning might, by the time it comes before court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. ( 39 ) THE writ-petitioner, in our view, cannot take advantage of the aforesaid decision for the simple reason that in order to invoke writ jurisdiction, the onus is upon the petitioner to satisfy. the court that he has a legal right to get the relief claimed. If on his own showing it appears that he has no such right, the High Court will not exercise its power even if the reason assigned by the authority below are not approved by the High Court. ( 40 ) AT this juncture, we can assume a hypothetical case for consideration to justify our aforesaid conclusion. The applicant, let us imagine in a given case, hais given the date of his birth in the application which is after August, 1947, nevertheless, claimed freedom-fighter's pension. Instead of rejecting that application on that ground, the Central government has given a different reason for rejecting such application. The applicant, let us imagine in a given case, hais given the date of his birth in the application which is after August, 1947, nevertheless, claimed freedom-fighter's pension. Instead of rejecting that application on that ground, the Central government has given a different reason for rejecting such application. In a writ-application filed by the applicant against such order, the court may not approve the reason assigned by the authority but can dismiss the writ-application on the ground that the petitioner's case is such an absurd one that he deserved no relief, he having been born after independence. In the same way, in the case before us, the applicant's plea of abscondence up to December 31, 1945 not having been followed by arrest or conviction was an absurd plea as discussed earlier unless he prayed for reprieve or he was implicated in a false case. Moreover, none of either of the three essential conditions for getting the benefit of underground for six months as required under the scheme has been satisfied even according to the assertion of the original writ-petitioner. ( 41 ) WE, therefore, find that in the case before us, in the absence of any material in support of the claim of the original writ-petitioner, merely on the basis of a certificate granted by a co-freedom-fighter no pension can be granted in favour of the writ-petitioner. The claim, as pointed out earlier, is an illogical one and the certificate also is not in compliance with the requirements of the scheme. ( 42 ) WE now propose of deal with the said decisions cited by Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioner. ( 43 ) IN the case of Makhan Bala Middya vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 2002 Calcutta 162, a learned Single Judge of this court was considering the case of grant of pension under the present scheme of different persons who remained underground on the allegation that they were proclaimed offender. In those cases, the official records were not forthcoming due to their non-availability and in such circumstances, they relied upon certificate given by co-freedom-fighter having the requisite qualification. The Government of India, however, rejected their scheme. In those cases, the official records were not forthcoming due to their non-availability and in such circumstances, they relied upon certificate given by co-freedom-fighter having the requisite qualification. The Government of India, however, rejected their scheme. In dealing with such a case, the learned Single Judge by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari vs. Union of India ( AIR 1993 SC 2127 ) and Gurdial Singh vs. Union of India. ( AIR 2001 SC 3883 ) held that the standard of proof required in this type of case is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon the rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As the object of the scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, the supreme Court observed, a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the scheme. ( 44 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, the case of Saktibala Samanta (supra) was referred to but His Lordship did not rely upon the said decision although the ultimate conclusion in the case of Saktibala samanta was not disturbed in appeal by a Division Bench of this court in M. A. T. No. 2066 of 2000 preferred by Saktibala Samanta. In those cases, dealt with by the learned Single Judge, we do not find whether the certificates fulfilled the requirements of the scheme or whether the certjfier himself was in prison at the relevant point of time. We are, however, of the view that the said decision is not at least applicable to the fact of the present case where the certifier himself was unable to assert "true to his knowledge" that the appellant was really underground in the circumstances mentioned in the scheme. We, thus, find that the said decision does not help Mr. Mukherjee's client in any way. In this connection, Mrs. Quraishi, however, placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of W. B. Freedom Fighters' organisation vs. Union of India and Ors. We, thus, find that the said decision does not help Mr. Mukherjee's client in any way. In this connection, Mrs. Quraishi, however, placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of W. B. Freedom Fighters' organisation vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2004 (7) SCC 716 where it was held that when the Statutory Advisory Committee had taken in to consideration the materials on record and rejected the claim of underground on the basis of co-freedom-fighter's certificate, the Supreme court should not interfere as the Committee had. come to the conclusion on the basis of available materials and that conclusion could not be said to be perverse. In paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that in most of the cases, the applicants claimed to have gone underground and yet, the certificate had been given by a co-freedom-fighter who was himself supposed to have been in the jail. ( 45 ) IN the appeal preferred against the case of Saktibala Samanta, the division Bench by order dated 28th November, 2000, ultimately did not interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge though some of the observations were not approved. By relying upon the said decision, mr. Mukherjee tried to contend before us, that we should not, therefore, rely upon the case of Saktibala Samanta. Since the Division Bench ultimately refused to interfere with the decision rejecting the claim of saktibala Samanta, we are of the view that the said Division Bench decision cannot help Mr. Mukherjee's client and the same rather goes against his client. We, thus, find that those decisions relied upon by Mr. Mukherjee are of no assistance to his client. ( 46 ) WE, therefore, find that the learned Single Judge erred in law in directing the Union of India to release pension simply because in" the past it decided to grant the pension in favour of the writ-petitioner. ( 47 ) THE appeal is thus, allowed and the order of the learned Single judge is set aside. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. Appeal of Union of India allowed