JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner’s husband late Sh. Sharwan Kumar was active member of Praja Mandal Movement in District Bilaspur. He was interned with effect from September 1946 to 12.10.1948. The certificates to this effect were issued by Sh. Kartar Singh, Ex-Dy. S.P. Bilaspur State on 25.6.1985 and by Sh. Khushi Mohammad. Similar certificate was issued by Sh. Narotam Dutt Shastri on 16.12.1993. Sh. Kartar Singh was Ex-Dy. S.P. of District Bilaspur. Sh. Khushi Mohammad was freedom fighter. Sh. Narotam Dutt Shastri was also a renowned freedom fighter. Petitioner’s husband submitted an application for grant of freedom fighter pension under the Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. According to the Scheme, a person interned in his home or externed from his district is eligible provided the period of internment or externment is six months or more. The internment or externment could be proved either by leading primary evidence or secondary evidence. In case the person was interned or externed from his district for a minimum period of six months was eligible for the grant of pension subject to furnishing of order of internment or externment issued by the competent authority from official record. In the absence of the official records, non-availability of records certificate from the State authority alongwith a certificate from prominent freedom fighter, who had proven jail suffering of at least two years, belonged to the same administrative unit and whose area of operation was same as that of the applicant was to be furnished. The Union of India has also taken a policy decision in the year 1989 that in those cases of sufferings claimed against verbal orders in connection with the freedom struggle, the certificates of the then authorities like superintendent of Police or Ministers may be accepted in relaxation of the norms of the scheme. 2.Petitioner’s husband submitted an application alongwith certificates. The decision was not taken on the same. He approached this Court by way of CWP No. 699 of 1994. It was disposed of on 23.5.1995. The judgment dated 23.5.1995 reads as under: “It is stated at the bar that the State Government has recommended the case of the present petitioner for grant of freedom fighter’s pension. The decision was not taken on the same. He approached this Court by way of CWP No. 699 of 1994. It was disposed of on 23.5.1995. The judgment dated 23.5.1995 reads as under: “It is stated at the bar that the State Government has recommended the case of the present petitioner for grant of freedom fighter’s pension. We dispose of the present petition, with direction to the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the case of the present petitioner for pension under the Scheme within a period of three months from today. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioner to approach this Court again, if necessary.” 3.However, the fact of the matter is that neither he petitioner’s husband nor petitioner obtained any decision pursuant to judgment dated 23.5.1995. Petitioner also sent a legal notice. Petitioner’s husband died on 10.11.2003. Petitioner was informed vide letter dated 15.10.2005 that the case of the petitioner’s husband has been rejected on 1.12.1998 vide Annexure P-11. Petitioner approached this Court by way of present petition. This Court on 13.7.2011 directed the Union of India to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of material placed and the case decided by this Court. The fact of the matter is that the case of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure R- 1 dated 3.10.2011. Thereafter, the writ petition was amended and the order Annexure R­1 dated 3.10.2011 was assailed. 4. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala has vehemently argued that the case of the petitioner was squarely covered under the Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. She then contended that the reasons assigned while rejecting the case of the petitioner vide Annexure R- 1 are contrary to the Scheme and no cogent reasons have been assigned while rejecting the case. 5.Ms. Anita Dogra has supported the decision AnnexureR- 1. 6.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 7. Respondent No.2 has also filed the reply. It is specifically stated therein that the case of the petitioner was got verified from the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. The case of the petitioner was recommended after due verification to respondent No.1 on 17.5.1985 by the State. In fact, this contention has already been taken into consideration by this Court while disposing of CWP No. 699/1994. 8. It is specifically stated therein that the case of the petitioner was got verified from the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. The case of the petitioner was recommended after due verification to respondent No.1 on 17.5.1985 by the State. In fact, this contention has already been taken into consideration by this Court while disposing of CWP No. 699/1994. 8. In the instant case, petitioner’s husband had filed alongwith the application, certificates issued by the two freedom fighters, namely, Sh. Khushi Mohammad and Sh. Narotam Dutt Shastri. The certificate issued by Sh. Kartar Singh, Ex.-Dy. S.P. of Bilaspur State is also admissible being corroborative evidence. Case of the petitioner’s husband was that he was interned on the basis of oral orders of the ruler of Bilaspur. Since the orders were oral, no record was available and the certificate to this effect has been issued by Sh. Kartar Singh. The petitioner has proved the case by furnishing secondary evidence in the absence of primary evidence. Merely, there is no written order of internment, will not suggest that the petitioner’s husband has not suffered internment, which is amply proved on the basis of certificates issued by Sh. Kartar Singh, Ex. Dy.S.P. of Bilaspur District, Sh. Khushi Mohammad and Sh. Narotam Dutt Shastri. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala has submitted that these two freedom fighters have suffered imprisonment for a period of two years. 9. According to the Scheme and the instructions issued thereunder, case of the petitioner has been recommended by the State Government and the certificates from the freedom fighters for suffering imprisonment for at least two years have been filed alongwith the application. However, surprisingly what has been stated while rejecting the case of the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner has not been recommended by the State Government. As noticed above, the case of the petitioner was recommended by the State Government on 17.5.1985 to the Government of India. The freedom fighters pension could not be denied to the petitioner only on the ground that she has not been granted pension under the State Scheme 1985. This condition was not imposed in the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. Petitioner has given secondary evidence strictly as per the norms prescribed by furnishing certificates from two freedom fighters, namely, Sh. Khushi Mohammad and Sh. Narotam Dutt Shastri. There is no contradiction in the case set up by the petitioner. This condition was not imposed in the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. Petitioner has given secondary evidence strictly as per the norms prescribed by furnishing certificates from two freedom fighters, namely, Sh. Khushi Mohammad and Sh. Narotam Dutt Shastri. There is no contradiction in the case set up by the petitioner. Petitioner’s husband could participate in the Praja Mandal Movement even though he was interned. Petitioner fulfilled all the requirements under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 and the rejection of the case by respondent No.1 is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexures P-11 dated 1.12.1998 and R-1 dated 3.10.2011 are quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to grant freedom fighter pension to the petitioner from the date of submission of the application alongwith interest @ 12% per annum within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.