JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri S.T. Kom, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned ASG for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Both the writ petitions have arisen out of the similar facts and circumstances and hence, are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. W.P. (C) No. 492 of 2012: 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for directing the respondent No. 1 to restore the pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension/Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 and in the alternative, for directing the District Judge, Manipur East to conduct an enquiry and confirm whether the Imprisonment Certificates submitted by the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners are genuine or not. 3.1. According to the petitioners, they are the freedom fighters or widows of the freedom fighters who joined Indian National Army (INA) and helped the Japanese and INA forces who were approaching Manipur during the Second World War. The petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners were arrested by the British Allied Forces and were imprisoned at Manipur Central Jail, Imphal for certain period. The petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners being freedom fighters were presented Copper Plate Citations namely, Tamarapatara by the then Prime Minister of India, (Late) Smt. Indira Gandhi. The translation of Tamarapatara (Copper Plate Citation) presented to one of the petitioners is reproduced herein below: "TRANSLATION OF TAMARAPATARA (COPPER PLATE CITATION) Ashok Chakra Satya Meva Jayate Govt. of India On the occasion of the 25th Independence Day of India, this copper plate (citation) is presented by the Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi for the memorable service/contribution in the freedom struggle. 15th August, 1972 Shri Tongkholun Kuki'' 3.2. The petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners were issued certificates by the then Jailor, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal on various dates certifying that the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners were arrested by the British Allied Forces for helping the intruding Japanese and INA forces and were detained in the Manipur Central Jail, Imphal for the period mentioned in their respective certificates in connection with various criminal cases registered by the order of the PRESIDENT, MANIPUR STATE DARBAR (HILLS). A copy of the certificate issued in favour of one of the petitioners is reproduced herein below: "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Shri Tongkholun Kuki, S/o Late Somkhojang Kuki of Maku Village, Manipur East District, Ukhrul at present New Lambuland, Manipur Central District. He was arrested by the British Allied Force in the help of Japanese and I.N.A. Then he admitted in the Manipur Central Jail, Imphal on 18-02-1945 in connection with Cril. Case No. 34/45 by the order of F.M.S.D. (Hills) and detained him until further order and release him from this Jail Custody on 30-09-1945 by order of the said P.M.S.D. (Hills). Dated/Imphal The 10th June, 1974. Sd/- Jailor, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal" 3.3. The Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 was replaced by the new Scheme known as the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. After confirming the status of the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners as freedom fighters detained in Jail and on the recommendation of the Government of Manipur after thorough investigation/enquiry, the Government of India sanctioned for provisional pension amount of Rs. 300 (three hundred) only per month to the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners and the said sanctions were conveyed to the Accountant General, Manipur, Imphal on various dates by the Under Secretary, Government of India. A copy of one of such letter addressed to the Accountant General, Manipur is reproduced herein below- "REGISTERED A.D. No. 2/696/74-FF.INA(T.54) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA/BHARAT SARKAR MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS/GRIH MANTRALAYA --- New Delhi - 110003, the 19th Sept., 1984 To The Accountant General, Manipur, Imphal. Subject:- Grant of pension from Central Revenue to Freedom Fighters and their families. Sir, I am directed to convey the sanction of the Present to the grant of provisional pension @ Rs. 300/- p.m. (rupees three hundred) only to Shri Tongkholun Kuki, S/o Late Shomkhojang Kuki of New Lambulane Central District, Imphal, Manipur. 2. The Pension will be for the life time of the recipient and will be paid w.e.f. 01-08-1980. This will be in addition to pension if any, sanctioned to the Freedom Fighters from the State Government. The pension in him/her case will be subject to review by the President. In particular, it is liable to cancellation or modification without any notice, if it is found that it was sanctioned on mistaken ground or on false information. This will be in addition to pension if any, sanctioned to the Freedom Fighters from the State Government. The pension in him/her case will be subject to review by the President. In particular, it is liable to cancellation or modification without any notice, if it is found that it was sanctioned on mistaken ground or on false information. The Government have also the full right to order recovery of the wrongly drawn pension in case the pension is cancelled. 3. He has reported that Smt. Tindei (50 years) is his spouse. In the event of the pensioner predeceasing she will be entitled to a family pension of Rs. 200/- p.m. (rupees two hundred only) to be enhanced upto Rs. 300/- p.m. to include pension for two dependant unmarried and unemployed daughters @ Rs. 50/- each) may be paid to her during her life time or till remarriage by her, from the date following the death of the pensioner. This may be done on submission of an application with necessary death certificate and documents for identification required in para 5 below by her to the pension disbursing officer." 4. The expenditure involved will be debitable to the Major Head "288-A-2-Other Social Security and Welfare Programmes A-2(1)-Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme in Demand No. 55-Other Expenditure of the Ministry of Home Affairs for the financial year, 1984 - 85. Necessary funds will be provided in your circle of account by reappropriation in due course. 5. It is requested that immediate arrangements may kindly be made for the payment of pension and pension payment order issued to hi/her. He/she has been advised to contact the concerned Treasury Officer/Sub-Treasury Officer, on receipt of P.P.O. from you, and to submit to him (in duplicate) his/her photograph, descriptive roll (i.e., two prominent identification marks) specimen signature, left-hand thumb and finger impression if the freedom fighter is not able to sign her name and date of birth duly attested by D.C./Collector of the District or by any of his subordinate Revenue Officer in the District not below the rank of a Tehsildar. 6. This issues under the powers delegated to this Ministry. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (BABU LAL) Under Secy. to the Govt. of India --- Copy forwarded for information:- 1. The Chief/Deputy/Joint/Secretary to the Govt. of Manipur, Imphal. 2. Shri/Smt. Tongkholun Kuki, S/o Late Shomkhojang Kuki of New Lambulane Central District, Imphal, Manipur. 3. 6. This issues under the powers delegated to this Ministry. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (BABU LAL) Under Secy. to the Govt. of India --- Copy forwarded for information:- 1. The Chief/Deputy/Joint/Secretary to the Govt. of Manipur, Imphal. 2. Shri/Smt. Tongkholun Kuki, S/o Late Shomkhojang Kuki of New Lambulane Central District, Imphal, Manipur. 3. The Collector, District Central District, Manipur. 4. The Treasury Officer, District Central District, Manipur. Sd/- (BABU LAL) Under Secy. to the Govt. of India ---" 3.4. On the anonymous complaints, the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur made an enquiry into it to confirm whether Imprisonment Certificates issued by the various Jailors, Manipur Central Jail were genuine or not. The Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur, after the said enquiry, made the following findings - "(i) Out of 156 accepted cases of pensioners (under Freedom Fighters Pension), only 5 (five) have undergone imprisonment as per the records available; (ii) 35 cases were found to be false claims; (iii) For the 116 cases, no definite conclusion could be arrived at as the records of the period are not traceable." On the basis of the above findings of the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur, the pensions provisionally granted to the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners were suspended and show cause notices were served upon them and in reply thereto, the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners submitted their replies, including affidavits, to show the genuineness of the certificates. A copy of the reply given by one of the petitioners is reproduced herein below: "To The Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters' Division New Delhi - 110003 Subject:- Humble prayer for reconsideration for revocation of suspension orders of freedom fighters/I.N.A. pension and their families from central revenues. Ref:- No. 25022/MN/139/Misc./99-FF(INA), dated 22-10-1999 Respected Sir, I have the honour to refer to above subject and reference number and to state the following facts for favour of your sympathetic reconsideration and issue of revocation orders please. 2. That, I have received your Ministry's letter referred to above only on 30-01-1999. I am really shocked and had uttered surprise about the contents of your letter. 3. That, I see no reason for cancellation/suspension of my FF/INA pension from any angles. I had really participated in the I.N.A., movement for the freedom struggle of India from the foreign yoke. That, I have received your Ministry's letter referred to above only on 30-01-1999. I am really shocked and had uttered surprise about the contents of your letter. 3. That, I see no reason for cancellation/suspension of my FF/INA pension from any angles. I had really participated in the I.N.A., movement for the freedom struggle of India from the foreign yoke. I was arrested by the British sepoys and had imprisoned in according to my genuineness by the Manipur Central Jail authority. 4. That, as far as my knowledge is concerned, the Government of Manipur and District administration had conducted necessary enquiry/verification and recommended my case since I have fulfilled all the requisite criteria under the scheme. 5. In view of the above fact and circumstances, your honour is therefore, requested kindly to reconsider my case my favourably and revoke forthwith the suspension of my pension for the ends of justice at the earliest date. For the act of kindness, I shall be in duty bound remain ever thankful and grateful. Dated/New Lambulane, Imphal The 12th November, 1999 Yours faithfully, (Tonhkholun Kuki) S/o (L) Somkhojang Kuki Imphal - 795001, Manipur --- Copy to: 1. The Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Manipur, Imphal for information and necessary action." 3.5. On receipt of the said replies of the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners, the Government of India directed the Government of Manipur to conduct re-verification of Imprisonment Certificates and the re-verification was done by the Department of Vigilance, Government of Manipur which made the findings that the persons to whom Imprisonment Certificates had been issued, were found to be genuine and accordingly, the earlier reports were withdrawn. These findings of the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur were submitted to the Government of India by the Additional Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur vide his letter dated 02-07-1999. 3.6. These findings of the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur were submitted to the Government of India by the Additional Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur vide his letter dated 02-07-1999. 3.6. The Government of India, being not satisfied with the aforesaid findings on re-verification of the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur, requested the Government of Manipur to hold a fresh enquiry into the genuineness of the Imprisonment Certificates and accordingly, the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur held an exhaustive enquiry and gave its findings, the relevant portions of which are given as under: "8(ii) The Jail Certificates were issued by the different Jailors in the tenure of Jailorship under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1977 which was renamed as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 by collecting the Bio-data of the applicants either from the Registers maintained by the Jail Department or the case records maintained by the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur, Imphal." "8(iii) After the lapsed of at least 5 to 10 years of issue of the said Jail Certificates, were made investigated by the officers of Vigilance Department and the new Superintendents of the Manipur Central Jail, Imphal. These officers supposed that the names of the applicants for the Jail Certificates be entered in the conviction Registers maintained by the Jail Department. They have made verification of Conviction Registers only and found that 5 persons only as genuine cases while the names of the rest were entered in the under Trial Registers for the years from 1942 to 1946. The investigators have reported that records (conviction registers) are available but the names of 35 persons and other 72 persons were found to be false claims as their names were not found in the same records of the relevant periods." "8(iv) The have also reported that nothing can be said of the remaining 16 cases and 210 cases due to want of records i.e., Conviction registers for the relevant periods. They also not verified the Under Trial Registers and the case Records where their names are recorded." "8(vi) It should not be presumed that the latest report of this Got. They also not verified the Under Trial Registers and the case Records where their names are recorded." "8(vi) It should not be presumed that the latest report of this Got. on the matter of 35 cases i.e., the cases are found genuine claims and the previous reports of Vigilance Department, Manipur and withdrawn is contradictory to its earlier stand as the Vigilance Department and Jail Department, Manipur did not made the verification properly and thoroughly but the present officers of the two Departments made the re-verification properly and minutely by examining all the records available in Jail Department and all case records maintained by the Deputy Commissioner's Officer, Imphal, Manipur and found the facts and truths of the Jail Certificates already issued by the Jailors of the Manipur Central Jail, Imphal." 3.7. The said report dated 17-09-1999 of the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur was submitted to the Government of India by the Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 26-10-1999 and on receipt of the said reports dated 17-09-1999, the Government of India sought a clarification from the Government of Manipur, in respect of 116 cases, which, it appears, expressed its inability to confirm the genuineness of the 116 cases in the year 2001. 3.8. The Government of India vide its letter dated 23-02-2009 informed the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur that all the reports of the Government of Manipur were conflicting and contradictory and that the pensions which had been granted to the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners but later cancelled, could not be restored. W.P. (C) No. 54 of 2013: 4.1. According to the petitioner, she is the widow of the deceased freedom fighter, Late Shri M. Shaihlutchung Kom who was a carrier (Coolie in Hindi) of the British and was arrested by the Japanese at Mandalay in Burma (now Myanmar) and produced before Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The petitioner's husband, in response to his appeal, joined the Indian National Army as sepoy but later, was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant and was arrested and detained in jail after the World War II ended. The petitioner's husband was presented with a Copper Plate Citation. 4.2. The petitioner's husband accompanied General Ito with five hundred soldiers moving towards Churachandpur and after destroying the British forces at Leimaton & Khengcheng, they reached Kangchup Bunglow and captured Soto Sahib (SP President). The petitioner's husband was presented with a Copper Plate Citation. 4.2. The petitioner's husband accompanied General Ito with five hundred soldiers moving towards Churachandpur and after destroying the British forces at Leimaton & Khengcheng, they reached Kangchup Bunglow and captured Soto Sahib (SP President). The petitioner's husband was leading the Japanese forces in all hill areas of Manipur following General Ito and when the Japanese surrendered, General Ito asked the petitioner's husband to accompany him to Japan but he turned down the offer and when the petitioner's husband was on his way home, he was arrested on 27-07-1944 and detained till 01-08-1945 when he was released. 4.3. On the basis of the document submitted by the petitioner's husband, he was granted provisional pension under the said scheme which he enjoyed till 19-02-1998 when the pension was suspended in view of the report given by the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur and a show cause notice was served upon him. The petitioner's husband submitted his reply dated 03-04-1998 explaining the genuineness of the document. However, vide its letter dated 19-05-2000, the Under Secretary to the Government of India informed the petitioner's husband that though his name was recorded in the under trial register of the Manipur Central Jail, he was not eligible for pension because he was not convicted. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the legality and correctness of the letter dated 19-05-2000 issued by the Government of India. It appears that to rebut the averments made in the writ petition, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the jail certificates issued by the concerned authorities were submitted in support of their claims and that the first report dated 13-02-1989 was made by the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur only after examining the case records where the names of the freedom fighters were found and kept under the custody of the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur. The Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur did not verify the undertrial Registers. Before the final report dated 17-09-1999 was prepared, the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur examined all records available both at the Jail Department and the case records maintained by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal, Manipur and found the imprisonment certificates issued by the then Jailors, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal to be genuine. Before the final report dated 17-09-1999 was prepared, the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur examined all records available both at the Jail Department and the case records maintained by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal, Manipur and found the imprisonment certificates issued by the then Jailors, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal to be genuine. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that some time in the year 1986, it came to the notice of the Central Government that the jail certificate of a particular case was questionable and it was decided to get the jail certificates verified regarding their genuineness. It is further submitted that the reports given by the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur were conflicting; that the replies given by the applicants including petitioners pursuant to the show cause notices were found unsatisfactory and that after examining all cases including the request made by the Government of Manipur keeping in view the eligibility criteria, it was found that the applicants did not submit acceptable evidence in support of their claims. 6. It is not in dispute that the freedom fighter's pension scheme, 1972 commenced from 15-08-1972 and provided for the grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families. Till 1980 the freedom fighter's pension was admissible only to those who were in need of financial assistance on account of their meagre annual income. The freedom fighters pension scheme, 1972 was replaced by the Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 and from 01-08-1980 the benefits of the pension scheme have been extended to all freedom fighters as token of Samman to them. The relevant portions of the scheme are as under: "3. WHO ARE ELIGIBLE DEPENDENTS? For the purpose of grant of Samman pension, family includes (if the freedom fighter is not alive) mother, father, widower/widow if he/she has not since remarried, unmarried daughters. Not more than one eligible dependent can be granted pension and in the event of availability of more than one dependent the sequence of eligibility of widow/widower, unmarried daughters, mother and father. 4. WHO IS ELIGIBLE? For the purpose of grant of samman pension under the scheme, a freedom fighter is- (a) A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before independence on account. 4. WHO IS ELIGIBLE? For the purpose of grant of samman pension under the scheme, a freedom fighter is- (a) A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before independence on account. However, ex-INA personnel will be eligible for pension if the imprisonment/detention suffered by them was outside India. (b) The minimum period of actual imprisonment for eligibility of pension has been reduced to three months, in case of women and SC/ST freedom fighters from 01-08-1980. Explanation 1. Detention under the orders of the competent authority will be considered as imprisonment. 2. Period of normal remission upto one month will be treated as part of actual imprisonment. 3. In the case of a trial ending in conviction, under the trail period will be counted towards actual imprisonment suffered. 4. Broken period of imprisonment will be totalled up for computing the qualifying period (b) A person who remained underground for more than six months provided he was 1. A proclaimed offender, 2. One on whom an award for arrest/head was announced, or 3. One for whose detention order was issued but not served. (c) A person interned in his home or externed from his district provided the period of internment/externment was six months or more. (d) A person whose property was confiscated or attached and sold due to participation in the freedom struggle. (e) A person who became permanently incapacitated during firing or lathi charge. (f) A person who lost his job (Central or State Government) and thus means of livelihood for participation in national movement. A MARTYR is a person who died or who was killed in action or in detention or was awarded capital punishment while participation in a National Movement for emancipation for emancipation of India. It will include an ex-INA or ex-Military person who died fighting the British." Over and above, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. A MARTYR is a person who died or who was killed in action or in detention or was awarded capital punishment while participation in a National Movement for emancipation for emancipation of India. It will include an ex-INA or ex-Military person who died fighting the British." Over and above, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, it is stated that as per the provisions of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, any applicant who claims 'jail sufferings' is eligible for grant of Central Samman Scheme subject to the following:- Imprisonment sufferings:- A person who had suffered minimum imprisonment of six months (3 months in case of women and ST/SC freedom fighters) on account of participation in freedom struggle subject to furnishing of the following evidence; (a) Primary evidence:- Imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned jail authority, District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release. (b) Secondary evidence:- In case records of the relevant period not available, secondary evidence in the form of 2 Co-prisoner Certificate from the central freedom fighter pensioners who have proven jail suffering of minimum 1 years and who were with the applicant in the same jail. The claims of the central samman pension can be considered by the Central Government only when these are duly verified and recommended by the State Government/Union Territory. As per the scheme, the verification and recommendation report of the State Government is mandatory. The stand of the State Government, in short, is that the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners are not entitled to enjoy pension mainly on two grounds- one, names of about 17 petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners were rewritten after the original names having been removed/erased and two, names of some of the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners are not found in the available jail records. 7. The laudable objective behind the said scheme and the manner in which the claims are to be considered have been succinctly brought out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in : (2001) 8 SCC 8 , the paragraphs 6 & 7 of which are given as under: "6. 7. The laudable objective behind the said scheme and the manner in which the claims are to be considered have been succinctly brought out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in : (2001) 8 SCC 8 , the paragraphs 6 & 7 of which are given as under: "6. The Scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. It has to be kept in mind that millions of masses of this country had participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any scheme at the relevant time. It has also to be kept in mind that in the partition of the country most of the citizens who suffered imprisonment were handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. The problem of getting the record from a foreign country is very cumbersome and expensive. Keeping in mind the object of the Scheme, the authorities concerned are required that in appreciating the Scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rational and not a technical approach is required to be adopted. It has also to be kept in mind that the claimants of the Scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their life for the country." "7. The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon 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, 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. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by the Scheme had suffered for the country about half-a-century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the Scheme. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the Scheme. The case of the claimants under this Scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touchstone of the test of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant has suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence." 8. While rendering its judgment and order in Gurdial Singh case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to its earlier judgment and order passed in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari Vs. Union of India, reported in : 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 wherein it observed: "9...The object in making the said relaxation was not to reward or compensate the sacrifices made in the freedom struggle. The object was to honour and where it was necessary, also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact, many of those who do not have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it, since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with which they plunged in the Freedom Struggle. The spirit of the Scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind of a programme of compensation. Yet that may be the result if the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever the date the application is made. The Scheme should retain its high objective with which it was motivated. It should not further be forgotten that now its benefit is made available irrespective of the income limit. Secondly, and this is equally important to note, since we are by this decision-making the benefit of the Scheme available irrespective of the date on which the application is made, it would not be advisable to extend the benefit retrospectively. It should not further be forgotten that now its benefit is made available irrespective of the income limit. Secondly, and this is equally important to note, since we are by this decision-making the benefit of the Scheme available irrespective of the date on which the application is made, it would not be advisable to extend the benefit retrospectively. Lastly, the pension under the present Scheme is not the only benefit made available to the freedom fighters or their dependents. The preference in employment, allotment of accommodation and in admission to schools and colleges to their kith and kin, etc. are also the other benefits which have been made available to them for quite sometime now." 9. After discussing the earlier judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & anr Vs. Namdeo & ors, reported in : (2013) 14 SCC 225 has summed up the legal propositions as under: "(a) The claims of the freedom fighter are to be dealt with, with sympathy. (b) The authorities are not to go by the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" and standard of proof based this principle has to be discarded. (c) On the contrary, the principle of probability is to be applied and eschewing the technicalities, the approach should be to uphold the entitlement. (d) When the scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced by the applicant, normally those documents need to be produced to prove the claim. (e) The High Court exercising writ jurisdiction does not sit in judgment over the decision of the State Government like an appellate authority. The order of the State Government is to be examined applying the parameters of judicial review which are available in examining the validity of such orders. (f) Even if the order is found to be perverse or flawed, the High Court can, at the most, remit back to the State Government to reconsider the case." 10. From the above decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear as to what is the laudable objective behind the scheme and what are the principles to be followed while considering the claims of the freedom fighters by the Government of India/State Governments. In the present cases also, there is no dispute about the above. From the above decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear as to what is the laudable objective behind the scheme and what are the principles to be followed while considering the claims of the freedom fighters by the Government of India/State Governments. In the present cases also, there is no dispute about the above. As has been stated in the preceding para that the verification and recommendation report of the State Government is mandatory, the whole controversy has arisen out of the manner in which the enquires were conducted by the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur and the reports thereof were submitted. It is not seriously disputed by the respondents that copper plate citations were presented to the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners by non other than the then Prime Minister of India, Smt. Indira Gandhi, on 15-08-1972 in so far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, even though it has been contended by the respondents that no pension can be awarded only on the basis that they were presented Tamarapatra (Copper Plate Citation). It may be true to some extent but the fact remains that copper plate citation must have been presented on a particular basis because the same is not presented to each and every citizen in the country. 11. In support of his claim, the petitioner No. 1 produced the certificate dated 10-06-1974 which is substantiated by the letter dated 12-08-1982 addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East, Lamphel by the then Jailor, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal after verification of detention certificate. The Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur submitted two reports- one dated 13-02-1989 and the other dated 17-09-1999, the contradiction of which has been seriously noted by the Central Government. The case of the petitioners is that during the course of the first enquiry, the Vigilance Department, Government of Manipur had not examined the register of undertrials and had examined only the case records of those who had been tried and convicted. While submitting the 2nd report, the Vigilance Department had examined both the register of the under trials and the case records and accordingly, gave its findings that the certificates were found to be genuine and the earlier reports were withdrawn. While submitting the 2nd report, the Vigilance Department had examined both the register of the under trials and the case records and accordingly, gave its findings that the certificates were found to be genuine and the earlier reports were withdrawn. It may be noted that in respect of 116 cases, the earlier report of the Vigilance Department indicated that no definite conclusion could be arrived at as records thereof were not available. The stand of the State Government is that the names of about 17 petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners were rewritten after the original names having been removed/erased and the names of the remaining petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners were not found in the available jail records. It is further stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that in regard to the findings of the Vigilance Department, no relevant records relating to issuance of imprisonment certificates by the jailor were found/traceable. All that the petitioners submit is that the jail certificates are issued by the concerned authorities of the State Government based on the records which are in their possession to which the petitioners have no access at all and anything happened in the records- whether it may be of missing files or of tempering in the files, should be attributed to the concerned authorities of the Government of Manipur. It appears that there is no finding given by any authority that it can be attributed to the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the stand of the State Government is correct, it has not disclosed the names of persons who are responsible for such tempering and missing of records. It can well be imagined the predicament or the humiliation that the petitioners would have suffered in the public after having enjoyed the pension for some years as mark of samman. In other words, the petitioners have been condemned for no fault of theirs. What is relevant today is not only the question regarding restoration of pension being given to the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners but also the question regarding their honour (samman) being disgraced in the manner mentioned above. In other words, the petitioners have been condemned for no fault of theirs. What is relevant today is not only the question regarding restoration of pension being given to the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners but also the question regarding their honour (samman) being disgraced in the manner mentioned above. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that in so far as the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 492 of 2012 is concerned, it may be just and appropriate if the Government of India re-examines the cases of the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners through an independent committee constituted through the State of Manipur so as to solve the problems once and for all. 12. As regards the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 54 of 2013, the only objection to the restoration of pension is that though the name of the petitioner's husband being found to be recorded in the undertrial register, he was not convicted but remained undertrial till he was released from the jail. This stand of the Government of India appears to be contrary to the scheme and the affidavit filed before this court in the connected writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 492 of 2012 wherein it has been stated that a person who had suffered minimum imprisonment of six months (3 months in case of women and ST/SC freedom fighters) on account of participation in freedom struggle is eligible for grant of Central Samman Scheme. The explanation 1 to the eligibility under the scheme provides that detention under the order of the competent authority will be considered as imprisonment. It is nowhere mentioned either in the affidavit or in the scheme that only a person, convicted for having participated in the freedom movement, is eligible for applying for grant of pension under the scheme. From the conjoint reading of the scheme and the affidavit indicating the stand of the Government of India, it appears that the imprisonment by way of detention for at least six months (3 months in case of women and ST/SC freedom fighters) is sufficient for grant of pension subject to the production of evidence for it. The imprisonment, to be suffered by the freedom fighters, is not qualified by the word 'conviction' for purpose of granting pension under the scheme. The imprisonment, to be suffered by the freedom fighters, is not qualified by the word 'conviction' for purpose of granting pension under the scheme. Under the scheme, the emphasis is not given on the conviction of a freedom fighter but on the imprisonment suffered by him in the jail. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the view that the petitioner's case requires reconsideration by the Government of India in terms of the scheme and in the event of petitioner's husband being found to be eligible, an appropriate decision be taken so as to restore his pension. With the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (a) As regards the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 492 of 2012, respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the Government of India shall constitute a committee, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, through the Government of Manipur to enquire into whether the petitioners/husbands of some of the petitioners (being ST) had suffered imprisonment of at least three months keeping in mind the above observations and take appropriate decisions within a month from the date of receipt of the report submitted by the said committee; (b) As regards the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 54 of 2013, respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the Government of India shall reconsider the case of the petitioner's husband (being ST) who had admittedly undergone imprisonment for more than three months as an undertrial and issue appropriate order for restoration of his pension within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.