THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.4835 of 2007 ORDER : The petitioner, who has been denied pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, has filed this Writ Petition assailing the said orders, dated 05-01-2007 of the 1st Respondent. The petitioner claims to have participated in Anti-Nizams Government Movement for merger of Hyderabad State into the Indian Union. On account of his activities in the said movement, the Director General of Police of the HEH Nizam Government issued Orders No.2/Cong/57, dated 18-5-1357 Fasli for arresting the petitioner and 88 others. He, therefore, remained underground for more than 6 months even while continuing the activities as a fighter for the sake of merger of Hyderabad State into Indian Union. On account of his participation in the said struggle, it is stated that the petitioner has become eligible for pension under the aforesaid scheme. He, therefore, made an application seeking pension in the year 1999. It appears that the 1st Respondent thereupon referred the matter to the 2nd Respondent for verification of the claim of the petitioner and the 2nd Respondent responded by submitting a report in Lr.No.D6/817/2000, dated 30-10-2005 through its District Collector, Hyderabad District. The said report was forwarded by the State Government under Letter No.43577/FF.III/2006-1, dated 09-11-2006. The 1st Respondent, however, without looking into the said orders, passed orders dated 05- 01-2007 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. That is how the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid relief. Heard Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.Mani Deepika, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent and perused the material on record. Admittedly, Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 has been evolved for providing pension to those persons who had participated in the freedom struggle against the then Nizam Government. As per the provisions of the Scheme a person who claims underground suffering is eligible for pension subject to his fulfilling the conditions that he remained underground for six months or more, provided he was proclaimed as an offender; or an award for arrest was announced; or a detention order was issued but not served. Voluntary underground sufferings or self-exile sufferings for party work under the command of the party leaders are not considered as eligible sufferings for pension. The said clause further envisages that the aforesaid conditions would be proved either by primary evidence consisting of an order of a Court or Government proclaiming him as an absconder, announcing an award on his head or for his arrest or detention. Absconding on issue of warrant of arrest is not an eligible suffering for grant of pension, unless the same is followed by the order of proclaimed offender/or award/or arrest/on head or detention order. The claim also can be proved by means of secondary evidence consisting of Non- Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) from the concerned department in the concerned State or Union Territory etc., along with a Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) from a prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering of a minimum two years hailing from the same administrative district. Thus, the scheme not only envisages proof by primary evidence but also by secondary evidence. It is needless to say that if primary evidence is available, there is no need for adducing any secondary evidence. In fact this is made clear in the Scheme that only in the absence of primary record based evidence, the other evidence mentioned therein need be submitted. In the instant case, as seen from the record, the letter bearing No. 2/Cong/57, dated 18-5-1357 Fasli, addressed by the Director General of Police, H.E.H. The Nizam’s Government to the Secretary to Government, Courts & Police, H.E.H. The Nizam’s Government, Hyderabad, clearly shows that arrest orders were issued to the petitioner to be imprisoned until further orders. The claim of the petitioner is shown at serial No.6 in the list appended to the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that in the light of the primary evidence available, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the same rather than rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the secondary evidence viz., NARC and PKC were not furnished. On a perusal of the impugned orders it is noticed that nowhere the 1st Respondent has considered the aforesaid letter of the Director General of Police and Report submitted by the State Government vide Lr.No. 43577/FF.III/2006-1, dated 09-11-2006. It is true that a reference is made to the said letter dated 09-11-2006, but the report enclosed therein has apparently not been considered. The letter of the Director General of Police dated 18-5-1357 Fasli and the aforesaid report of the State Government being material, it is incumbent upon the 1st Respondent to have considered the same before reaching a conclusion. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires re-consideration for an appropriate decision in the light of the aforesaid documents. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 05-01-2007 and the matter is remanded directing the 1st Respondent to re-consider the claim of the petitioner taking into account the primary evidence referred to above and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the scheme, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 09th February, 2011. skmr THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.4835 of 2007 Date : 09-02-2011 Between : R.R.Ram Reddy .. Petitioner and Union of India, rep. by its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Loknayak Bhavan (Hyderabad FF Cell), New Delhi and another .. Respondents