JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. 1. In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners challenge the validity of R. 23 of the Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called K.F.F.P. Rules). K.F.F.P. Rules first time was brought in the year 1971. As per the rule then existing it is sufficient that the applicant produce secondary evidence for grant of pension. However, an amendment was brought in the year 2008 by incorporating R. 23 to the Rules, which reads as follows: "In the said Rules the following Rule shall be incorporated. 23. Application/Review/Appeal Petitions received after 31.03.1994 will be considered only on production of documentary evidences from Official records such as warrant of arrest, Court records, Jail records clearly showing the applicant's suffering in connection with the freedom struggle." 2. According to the petitioners they all submitted applications much before 2008 and therefore the applications will have to be considered according to the old Rules. It is further argued that it is impossible to produce primary records as the officials do not have such records. Therefore, petitioners question the validity of the Rule on the ground of arbitrariness as well. These Writ Petitions were filed in the year 2008-2009 and so on. By passage of time Government also incorporated R. 23A which reads as follows: "Government shall have the power to sanction Kerala Freedom Fighters Pension/Family Pension/Continuous Pension in relaxation of R. 23 whenever the Government are undoubtedly convinced of the genuineness of the claim. This shall be applicable to all cases in which sanction for pension has already been ordered by Government." 3. In effect the Government felt that in case the applicants are able to satisfy genuineness of their claim the Government is not insisting upon primary evidence as referred in R. 23. Therefore, what is paramount for consideration for granting pension is the genuineness of the claim and not the nature of evidence. It is for the applicants to apprise the Government either by producing primary or secondary evidence to satisfy the genuineness of the applications. All these Writ Petitions are rejected mainly on R. 23, as noted above before the incorporation of R. 23(A). 4. It is to be noted that petitioners having a case that official records are not available with authorities and they rely upon certificates and other documents to show that official records are not available. All these Writ Petitions are rejected mainly on R. 23, as noted above before the incorporation of R. 23(A). 4. It is to be noted that petitioners having a case that official records are not available with authorities and they rely upon certificates and other documents to show that official records are not available. Certainly in such cases official records shall not be insisted. However, secondary evidence as such relied by them is genuine or not is a matter to be considered by the Government. In the light of R. 23A, challenge to R. 23 on the ground of arbitrariness has become redundant in as much as Government has come out with redressal to the grievances of such applicants who are not able to produce the primary records by way of R. 23(A). That be so, this Court is of the view that the Applications/Review/Appeal Petitions filed by the petitioner shall be considered after adverting to the genuineness of the claim in terms of R. 23A. It is for the authority to be satisfied with primary or the secondary evidence as the case may be, produced in the matter by the parties. Accordingly, impugned orders are set aside for re-consideration after adverting to R. 23(A). Appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after issuing notice to the petitioners.