ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “A. The impugned orders dated 01.10.2014 (Ann.5) passed by the Collector, Barmer (Respondent no. 3) and order dated 26.12.2017 (Ann. 11) passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent no. 2), may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. That the application of the petitioner for getting Pension and Medical allowance under the Rules of 2008 may kindly be allowed with all consequential benefits granted to the similarly situated persons. C. Arrears of Pension along with interest @ 12% Per annum may also directed to be paid to the petitioner. D. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of petitioner. E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which is in favour of petitioner found by Hon'ble Court, may kindly be passed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was detained in jail for the period 09.07.1975 to 25.02.1976, as evidenced by the certificate dated 16.06.2008 (Annex.2) issued in his favor. He further submits that the respondents formulated the Rajasthan MISA and DIR Prisoners Pension Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2008’) to extend pension benefits to the persons, who fought the Indo-Pak war and were detained during the aforesaid period. 3. Being eligible, the petitioner applied for these benefits and was declared eligible; however, the petitioner was never granted the said benefits. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12799/2019; however, in view of the subsequent cancellation of the scheme/order dated 01.10.2014 granting pension under the Rules of 2008, the said petition was withdrawn vide order dated 24.02.2022 with liberty to file afresh, should the need arise, thereby necessitating the present proceedings. Moreover, the respondents issued a revised scheme dated 25.04.2024 (Annex.12) to extend similar benefits under updated guidelines. Despite the petitioner’s eligibility, the respondents rejected his claim based on the existence of six criminal antecedents during the relevant period, thus holding him ineligible. 4. Learned counsel admits that the petitioner had six criminal antecedents as reflected in the report dated 04.08.2014 (Annex.6), however, regarding Case No.35/64 under Section 392 IPC , the petitioner was convicted but subsequently filed an appeal and was acquitted. 4. Learned counsel admits that the petitioner had six criminal antecedents as reflected in the report dated 04.08.2014 (Annex.6), however, regarding Case No.35/64 under Section 392 IPC , the petitioner was convicted but subsequently filed an appeal and was acquitted. He submits that unfortunately, the petitioner is unable to produce a copy of the acquittal order as the concerned Court informed him that the document dated 24.04.1991 was weeded out on 15.06.1993, therefore, the petitioner could not furnish a copy either before this Court or before the respondents. 5. He further submits that with regard to Case No.38/73 under Sections 353 and 341 IPC , the report dated 04.08.2014 (Annex.6) indicates that the petitioner was acquitted, and the remaining four cases pertain to periods post year 1976 and thus should not affect the petitioner’s claim. 6. He also submits that the petitioner’s consideration for extension of pension and other benefits has wrongly been rejected by the respondents ignoring the fact that the petitioner was detained under Section 3(2) of the MAINTENANCE OF INTERNAL SECURITY ACT , 1971 (‘MISA’), for the period of 09.07.1995 to 25.01.1976. He submits that the Committee had earlier held petitioner as eligible, however, subsequently, the petitioner was held as ineligible on account of 6 criminal cases registered against him. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner’s candidature was rightly rejected due to pending six criminal cases. She submits that under the Rules of 2008, pension benefits are intended only for those detained for political or social reasons and not for persons of criminal character. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has a criminal character, which remains undisputed by the petitioner as well. 8. She submits that Rule 14 mandates that beneficiaries must demonstrate good conduct and in case the person is convicted of serious criminal offences and guilty of misconduct and the benefit of pension is accorded to such persons, then the order could be cancelled in such a situation and the money can be recovered. 9. Heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. 9. Heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. This is an admitted position that due to cancellation of the scheme/order dated 01.10.2014 granting pension under the Rules of 2008, the earlier petition was withdrawn vide order dated 24.02.2022 with liberty to file afresh, should the need arise, now, as the respondents have issued a revised scheme dated 25.04.2024 (Annex.12) to extend similar benefits under updated guidelines; thereby, necessitating the present proceedings as the petitioner’s case is not considered on account of the impugned orders dated 01.10.2014 (Annex.5) and 26.12.2017 (Annex.11). 11. The record and arguments unequivocally establish, based on the certificate dated 16.06.2008 (Annex.2) issued by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Jodhpur, that the petitioner was detained under Section 3(2) of MISA from 09.07.1975 to 25.02.1976, and was subsequently released on 25.02.1976 pursuant to the order dated 24.02.1976. The respondents do not contest the authenticity of this certificate and concede that the petitioner was lawfully detained during this period for offences committed under the Act of 1971. 12. Further, the respondents’ report dated 04.08.2014 (Annex.6) records six criminal cases against the petitioner, of which two culminated in conviction, two in acquittal, one was compromised, and one resulted in discharge. On the basis of these findings, the respondents concluded by order dated 26.12.2017 (Annex.11) that the petitioner is disqualified for pension benefits under Rules 11 and 14 of the 2008 Rules. The details of the registered cases are summarized below: 13. The petitioner’s case was considered by the competent Committee, and pursuant to the order dated 18.12.2008 (Annex.3) issued by the District Collector, Barmer, the petitioner was held eligible for pension benefits though such benefits were never released by the respondents. However, in subsequent lists issued by the respondents, the petitioner’s name was excluded, and the claim was rejected based on the respondents’ findings communicated via the order dated 04.08.2014. 14. The Rules of 2008 were promulgated by the Government of Rajasthan to provide pension and medical allowances to original state residents detained under MISA or DIR in the state prisons during the Emergency period from June 25, 1975 to March 1977, on political or social grounds. To determine eligibility, Rules 11 and 14 of the 2008 Rules are pertinent, which stipulate: 15. To determine eligibility, Rules 11 and 14 of the 2008 Rules are pertinent, which stipulate: 15. In order to examine the eligibility of the petitioner, Rule 11 and Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008 are also required to be examined, which are reproduced hereunder: 16. Rule 11 requires examination of applications by the District- level committee, consisting of the District Magistrate & District Collector (Chair), District Social Welfare Officer (Member), and District Jail Superintendent (Member). It mandates pensions exclusively for those detained under MISA/DIR for political or social reasons, ensuring no separate criminal or antisocial records at the time of detention and pensions are approved or denied based on the district committee’s recommendations. 17. Rule 14 mandates that pension recipients maintain good conduct. If found guilty of serious offences or if pension was obtained via false information, the pension order shall be revoked and any pension amount already disbursed shall be recovered in full, with unpaid amounts recoverable as land revenue. 18. MISA was promulgated with the object to provide for detention in certain cases for the purpose of maintenance of internal security and matters connected therewith. The Act of 1971 stands repealed by the National Security Act, 1980. Section 3(2) of the Act of 1971, is reproduced hereunder, which empowers the Central Government or the State Government to make orders detaining certain persons: “3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.- (1) The Central Government or the State Government may,- (a) if satisfied with respect of any person (including a foreigner) that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to- (i) the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India. (ii) the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. (iii) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. (b) if satisfied with respect to any foreigner that with a view to regulating his continued presence in India or with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (iii) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. (b) if satisfied with respect to any foreigner that with a view to regulating his continued presence in India or with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (2) Any of the following officers, namely- (a) District Magistrates, (b) Additional District Magistrates specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, (c) Commissioner of Police, for Bombay, Calcutta, Madras or Hyderabad, (3) When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in his opinion have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than [twenty days] after the making thereof unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government: Provided that where under Section 8 the grounds of detention are communicated by the authority making the order after five days but not later than fifteen days from the date of detention, this sub-section shall apply subject to the modification that for the words ["twenty days"], the words [twenty-five days"] shall be substituted. (4) When any order is made or approved by the State Government under this section, the State Government shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in the opinion of the State Government have a bearing on the necessity for the order.” 19. The certificate dated 16.06.2008 (Annex.2) also shows that the detention of the petitioner has been made on account of the emergent situation, which certificate is reproduced hereunder: 20. It is imperative for this Court to scrutinize whether, during the petitioner's period of detention, there existed any separate police record of criminal or anti-social activities attributable to the petitioner. The respondents declared the petitioner ineligible solely on the basis of six criminal cases registered against him. However, Rule 11 expressly mandates that eligibility hinges on the absence of such separate criminal or anti-social police records at the time of detention. The respondents declared the petitioner ineligible solely on the basis of six criminal cases registered against him. However, Rule 11 expressly mandates that eligibility hinges on the absence of such separate criminal or anti-social police records at the time of detention. The order dated 26.12.2017 (Annex.11) unequivocally confirms that no criminal case was pending or registered against the petitioner during the detention period from 09.07.1975 to 25.02.1976. Criminal cases from prior or subsequent years are legally extraneous and cannot impinge upon the petitioner's entitlement under the Rajasthan MISA and DIR Prisoners Pension Rules, 2008. The petitioner's detention under Section 3(2) of MISA—a statutory provision vesting state authorities with powers to detain persons deemed prejudicial to state security, public order, or essential supplies during the Emergency, as certified vide Annex.2 dated 16.06.2008—further buttresses this position. 21. The detention certificate explicitly states the petitioner was held under MISA for political reasons, not for criminal conduct, confirming entitlement to pension under the Rules. Thus, rejection of pension based solely on unrelated criminal cases is arbitrary and unlawful. Consequently, orders denying pension benefits dated 01.10.2014 and 26.12.2017 are hereby quashed, and the respondents are directed to grant the petitioner pension and medical allowances without delay, in accordance with the Rajasthan MISA and DIR Prisoners Pension Rules, 2008. 22. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. 23. Stay application as well as all other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.