Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 8.3.2010 passed in CWP No.1399 of 2002 by the learned Single Judge, the 1st respondent-Union of India has preferred the present appeal through its Secretary in the Department of Home Affairs. 2. One Shri Narain Dass (since dead) allegedly an activist of Praja Mandal Movement in the then Princely State Bilaspur, approached this Court by filing the above writ petition with the following prayers: (a) That the petitioner be declared to be a freedom fighter and be granted pension under the Swatantarta Sainai Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, from the date of (b) That the order of rejection dated 17.4.2002 (Annexure PG) may kindly be quashed. (c) That the respondents be directed to pay arrears of pension to the petitioner alongwith interest @12% per annum, from the date of his application.” 3. Shri Narain Dass aforesaid passed away on 14.1.2003, leaving behind his widow Smt. Geeta Devi, who was later on substituted as his legal heir pursuant to orders passed in an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and order 22 Rules 3 & 10(1) read with Section 151 CPC, registered as CMP(M) No.199/2002. 4. On completion of pleadings and having his application, and also under the Scheme promulgated by respondent No.2. heard learned counsel on both sides as well as having gone through the law laid down by this Court in similar matters, learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has concluded as under: “ In the present case also, I find that certificates from S/Shri Narottam Dutt Shastri, Devender Singh Chandel and Ganga Ram Bhardwaj, have also been annexed with this petition. In these circumstances, I do not find that there is a valid reason that the petitioner has been denied the freedom fighter pension. This writ petition is allowed and Annexure PG is accordingly quashed and set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents that freedom fighter pension be sanctioned and paid to the petitioner herein forthwith.” 5. In these circumstances, I do not find that there is a valid reason that the petitioner has been denied the freedom fighter pension. This writ petition is allowed and Annexure PG is accordingly quashed and set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents that freedom fighter pension be sanctioned and paid to the petitioner herein forthwith.” 5. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned on the grounds, inter alia, that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the criteria laid down under the Swatantarta Sainai Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 and erroneously placed reliance on the certificates issued by S/Shri Devender Singh Chandel, Narottam Dutt Shastri and Ganga Ram Bhardwaj, because there was no evidence suggesting that these persons have ever undergone imprisonment for a minimum period of 2 years. In the absence of any contemporaneous record duly verified by the 2nd respondent qua internment/externment of deceased petitioner Narain Das, no relief could have been granted to the petitioner. Also that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari & others Vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1993 SC 2127 has also been erroneously ignored. 6. Learned Assistant Solicitor General while drawing our attention to various provisions under the Scheme, extracted in the grounds of appeal and also in reply to the writ petition, has forcefully contended that for want of cogent and reliable evidence, suggesting that the deceased petitioner remained externed for a minimum period of two years pursuant to an executive order, he can neither be treated a Praja Mandal activist nor entitled to the grant of pension under the Scheme. Also that the certificates issued by S/Shri Devender Singh Chandel, Narottam Dutt Shastri and Ganga Ram Bhardwaj cannot be treated as secondary evidence for want of proof that these persons had undergone imprisonment for a period not less than two years. Also that during the course of inquiry got conducted through Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, no evidence connecting the deceased petitioner with Praja Mandal Movement could be collected, therefore, on this score also no relief could have been granted. 7. Also that during the course of inquiry got conducted through Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, no evidence connecting the deceased petitioner with Praja Mandal Movement could be collected, therefore, on this score also no relief could have been granted. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, representing the writ petitioner, while repelling the submissions so made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, has contended that the judgment, which is reasoned one and supported by law laid down by this Court in similar matters, calls for no interference and deserves to be upheld. 8. As noticed supra, deceased Narain Dass had claimed that he being an activist of Praja Mandal Movement, was externed from Bilaspur State on the verbal orders of the then king of Bilaspur in 1946 and could reenter in his State in 1948. Also that he remained underground during the period 1946 to 1948 and suffered huge financial loss while in exile. In counter thereto, on behalf of the respondent-Union of India, reference has been made to the criteria prescribed under the Scheme and applicable to a case of this nature, which reads as follows: “Internment/Externment: a person who, on account of participation in the freedom struggle, was interned in his home or externed from his district for a minimum period of six months, is eligible subject to furnishing of order of internment or externment issued by the competent authority, from official record. In absence of the official records NARC from the State Government/UT Administration concerned, alongwith a certificate from prominent freedom fighter, who had proved jail suffering of at-least two years, who belonged to the same administrative unit and whose area of operation was same as that of the applicant, should be furnished.” 9. The criteria reproduced supra, has been discussed by this Court in the judgments dated 29.12.1994 titled Prabhu Ram Vs. Union of India and another rendered in CWP No.539 of 1990 and dated 22.3.1995 titled Chandu Ram Sharma Vs. Union of India and another, rendered in CWP No.384 of 1994. Learned Single Judge has discussed the law laid down by this Court in similar matters in the impugned judgment, hence, need not be discussed herein again in order to avoid repetition. Union of India and another, rendered in CWP No.384 of 1994. Learned Single Judge has discussed the law laid down by this Court in similar matters in the impugned judgment, hence, need not be discussed herein again in order to avoid repetition. However, suffice would it be to say that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition after appreciating the law so laid down by this Court and also the whole material available on record in its right perspective. 10. True it is that in order to claim the pension under the Scheme on account of internment/externment, production of an order of internment/externment for a minimum period of six months from official record by the claimant is a condition precedent under the Scheme. In the absence of official record, NARC (Non-availability record certificate) issued by the State Government alongwith a certificate from prominent freedom fighter having proven jail sufferings of at least two years and belonging to the same administrative unit, is required to be furnished. Any other corroborative documentary evidence would also be acceptable. 11. Admittedly, no order of externment is available in the instant case. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that deceased Narain Dass was externed pursuant to verbal orders of the Ruler of Bilaspur State. The claim in the writ petition that deceased Narain Dass remained externed during the years 1946 to 1948 pursuant to verbal orders of the Ruler is supported by his own affidavit. The other corroborative piece of evidence is the certificate Ext. R-1/7. The author whereof is Shri Ganga Ram, the real brother of deceased Narain Dass, who is a freedom fighter and recipient of Central freedom fighter pension under Ministry of Home Affairs PPO No.1920 dated 1.4.1974. Another certificate Annexure R-1/8 has been issued by Narottam Dutt Shastri, former MLA, again a recipient of Central freedom fighter pension under Ministry of Home Affairs Order No. NZ-11-117/B/151/81 dated 20.2.1982. Both Ganga Ram and Narottam Dutt Shastri belong to Bilaspur District. Deceased Narain Dass was personally known to them. Above all, Ganga Ram Bhardwaj aforesaid is the real brother of deceased Narain Dass. Both Ganga Ram and Narottam Dutt Shastri belong to Bilaspur District. Deceased Narain Dass was personally known to them. Above all, Ganga Ram Bhardwaj aforesaid is the real brother of deceased Narain Dass. Said Shri Ganga Ram vide Annexure R/3 has further certified that when their house was locked, his deceased brother Narain Dass was also tortured by the police and forced to leave the house and as such he remained externed during the period 1946-48 and could reenter in Bilaspur State on its merger in the Union Territory viz. as per certificate Annexure R-1 in October, 1948. 12. In our opinion, learned Single Judge has rightly considered and treated the above certificates as secondary and corroborative evidence in support of the claim laid by the deceased petitioner in the writ petition duly supported by his own affidavit. 13. Otherwise also, aim of Prajamandal activists, like deceased Narain Dass, was to win freedom and not to collect evidence qua their externment/internment or jail sufferings. This Court has rightly observed so in Chandu Ram’s case cited supra. 14. Much has been said about the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari & others Vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1993 SC 2127 . With due regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment supra, the evidence is required to be produced before the respondent-Union of India and even it is for the respondent itself to scrutinize the same. Since there is provision under the Scheme to take into consideration the secondary evidence for want of primary evidence as discussed supra and as the petitioner has produced the evidence in the shape of certificates discussed hereinabove, therefore, the same can be legally termed as secondary evidence within the meaning of the Scheme. Learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality or irregularity in accepting the same while allowing the writ petition. The impugned judgment thus neither suffers from any illegality nor infirmity or irregularity whatsoever. We thus find no substance in the present appeal and the same accordingly deserves dismissal. 15. In view of all the reasons hereinabove, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.