UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHANSINOH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

(3.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 1/6/1995 made by the Punjab and Haryana High court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3790 of 1994. The first respondent, claiming to be a freedom fighter, made an application on 1/8/1972 for pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme framed by the government of India. The primary evidence in support of his undergoing imprisonment for six months has been based on a certificate of an MLA and co-prisoner. That certificate was considered by the appellant- government, as per the directions of the High court in an earlier writ petition, and it is found that the respondent was not a freedom fighter and, therefore, not entitled to the pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme. The respondents again challenged the decision in the present writ petition. The High court in the impugned order has held that in view of the evidence produced by the respondents, they must be declared freedom fighters. Accordingly, the writ petition has been allowed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.