JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Arun Kumar Upadhyay for petitioner and Dr. Ashok Nigam assisted by Sri Kashi Nath Singh appearing for Respondent No. 1. Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Petitioner, who has earlier approached this Court by means of an earlier writ petition, claims that though he is entitled for Freedom Fighter’s Pension granted by the Central Government, but has not been given the same. On the aforesaid writ petition, this Court has directed petitioner to file a representation and further directed Respondent-Union of India to decide petitioner’s representation. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Central Government by the impugned order dated 27th August, 2007 rejected petitioner’s representation for grant of Freedom Fighter’s Pension from the Central Government on the ground that petitioner does not come within the four grounds, that is, (i) He has not furnished any record-based primary evidence, duly verified by the State Government, in support of his claim that his suffering entitled him to the pension (as indicated in para 3), (ii) He has not furnished a valid Non-Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) from the State Government (i.e., the competent authority) containing all ingredients prescribed therefor (as indicated in para 3 above), (iii) In the absence of a valid NARC, secondary evidence, i.e., Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKCs) for going underground cannot be considered and are not acceptable, and (iv) The Central Pension scheme and the State Pension scheme are two separate and distinct schemes and are governed by separate rules, Grant of pension by State Government does not entitle grant of pension by the Central Government, unless requirements prescribed by Central Government are fulfilled. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner miserably failed to demonstrate from the materials on record that any of the objections of the Central Government refusing Freedom Fighter’s pension to the petitioner is either not correct or that these findings are perverse and suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. Sri Upadhyay submits that in the similar circumstances, this Court has passed an interim order in the other matters. He further says that other persons have been granted Freedom Fighter’s pension by the Central Government, therefore, petitioner claims parity. 4. Sri Upadhyay submits that in the similar circumstances, this Court has passed an interim order in the other matters. He further says that other persons have been granted Freedom Fighter’s pension by the Central Government, therefore, petitioner claims parity. 4. The Government Order under which a person is held to be entitled for grant of Freedom Fighter’s pension by the Central Government clearly lays down conditions under which pension shall be given to the claimant by the Central Government. There is no material on record to demonstrate that petitioner fulfils the condition of Underground suffering which lays down the condition that for entitlement of pension “A person who on account of his participation in freedom struggle remained underground for more than six months.” There is nothing on record to show that petitioner has undergone imprisonment at least for six months. 5. Learned Counsel for petitioner then submitted that since petitioner is getting pension of Freedom Fighter from the State Government on the basis of same he is also entitled for the pension of Freedom Fighter from Central Government. 6. To us, it appears that the relevant Government Order clearly lays down the criteria on the basis of which Freedom Fighter’s pension can be granted, but petitioner does not conform to those criterion and, therefore, the Central Government rightly refused to grant Freedom Fighter’s pension to petitioner. 7. In our opinion, view taken by the Central Government in rejecting petitioner’s representation does not suffer from any error of law which warrants interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. ————