STATE OF ORISSA v. CHOUDHURI NAYAK

A showed that the name of the first respondent had been fraudulently inserted among names of the accused who were convicted and sentenced in a criminal case. It was further contended that the first respondent had concealed his date of birth while applying for and B securing the pension. In view of the said allegations, the Central Government cancelled the grant of pension to the first respondent on the basis that he had secured it by fabricating documents. The first respondent challenged the said cancellation by filing a writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD:1. This Court in order to ensure that no genuine Freedom Fighter is denied pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension scheme, has, in various judgments, spelt out the principles, which are summarized as under: (i) The object of the scheme was to honour, and where necessary, to mitigate the sufferings of to achieve those who had struggled independence for the country. Many freedom fighters, even though they did not have sufficient income to maintain themselves, would even be reluctant to receive the Pension under the Scheme, as they would consider it as putting a price on their patriotism. the spirit of the Scheme being both to assist and honour the freedom fighters and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made by them, the authorities should treat the applicants with respect and courtesy. The scheme should not be converted into some kind of routine scheme for payment of compensation. C o E F G H STATE OF ORISSA v. CHOUDHURI NAYAK (DEAD 617 BY LR) & ORS. (ii) The persons intended to be covered by the A Scheme are those who sacrificed and suffered for achieving the independence of the country, without expecting any reward for their sacrifice and sufferings. Therefore they can not be expected to maintain and produce B perfect records or documents about their participation in the freedom struggle. (iii) Once the country has decided to honour freedom fighters by granting a pension, the C approach of the authorities implementing the scheme should not be obstructionist or technical while examining the applications and documents produced, but be practical having regard to the fact that most of the applications are by old persons with no proper records. D (iv) The criterion for pension under the scheme is not age, but participation in freedom struggle. The freedom fighters pension can, therefore, in exceptional cases, be granted even to those E who were minors at the time of struggle, if evidence clearly showed that they had participated in the freedom struggle and fulfilled the requirements of the scheme. [Para 8) [625-C-H; 626-A-D] F