Earlier there was a Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the 1972 scheme .
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The respondent claimed that he had participated in the freedom struggle of the companyntry and had suffered imprisonment and was, therefore, entitled to pension under the scheme.
In the application accompanied by an affidavit filed before the State of Punjab, the period of imprisonment was indicated to be 20.10.1942 to 20.10.1943.
The matter was carried before this Court in Civil Appeal No.8388 of 2001.
Since the High Courts order was practically unreasoned, this Court directed the High Court to hear the matter afresh and dispose of the same by a reasoned order.
Learned Single Judge whose order was assailed before the Division Bench had held that the respondent was entitled to freedom fighters pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 in short scheme .
The matter was carried in appeal by a Letters Patent Appeal, which as numbered above, was dismissed.
But a different period i.e. 20.10.1942 to 15.8.1943 was indicated in the application and the affidavit filed before the Union.
The later Scheme was introduced in 1980.
Though initially pension was granted to the respondent, by order dated 18.12.2000, it was indicated on inquiry that the respondent had indicated two different versions while claiming pension under the Scheme.
The jail certificate in support of jail suffering has to be based on official records of the jail.
In the instant case numbersuch certificate was filed and on the companytrary certificate from a person whose credentials were doubtful was filed.
The pension sanctioned to him was cancelled and he was directed to refund the amount which had already been paid to him.
A writ petition was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Union of India calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by it.
The matter was heard afresh.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the application filed by the respondent was incomplete.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Arising out of SLP C No.
5367 of 2006 Leave granted.
It was also numbered that the respondent had accepted the above position to be companyrect, but attributed the same to his illiteracy.
