(Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India) Sudarshan Behera … v. State of Odisha & Another
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 13361 of 2017 (Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India) Sudarshan Behera …… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha & Another ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Sudarsan Behera, Advocate. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Addl. Government Advocate ___________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 16th May, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for grant of freedom fighters’ pension (non-jailed) by the Government. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter, who participated in the Satyagraha, Non-Cooperation Movement and Quit India Movement against the Britishers from the year 1940, when he Page 1 of 17 was only 16 years old. He was arrested by the Britishers and imprisoned, but could not obtain copy of the jail certificate. 2.1. He applied for freedom fighters’ pension under the Central Government Scheme in the year 1987, but, his claim was not considered and letter dated 11.12.1998 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government in Finance Department was received by him requesting him to submit the required documents. 2.2. In the meantime, the Government of Odisha issued circular no. 47348 dated 09.10.2002 providing for grant of non- jailed freedom fighters’ pension fixing the cut-off date as 31.12.2004. 2.3. The petitioner submitted application by registered post on 27.12.2004 enclosing copy of his voter identity card and personal knowledge certificates from two freedom fighters availing pension. No action was taken, for which the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Chief Minister in his Grievance Cell, who directed the Department concerned to consider his application. Page 2 of 17 2.4. By letter dated 10.03.2008 of the Finance Department, the petitioner was informed that he is not entitled to the pension, as his application had not been received by the cut-off date. The petitioner, in a representation dated 13.10.2008, clarified that he had submitted the application within time.
Legal Reasoning
2.5. Since no action was taken, he approached this Court in
Decision
WP(C) No. 1283 of 2009, which was disposed of on 19.03.2009 directing the authorities to consider his representation. 2.6. On 01.11.2011, the petitioner was asked to furnish original documents, which the petitioner submitted. He also submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 12.06.2013 to know the status of his claim and was informed that his case had not been finalized for want of receipt of information from the District Treasury Officer, Nayagarh and the Deputy Collector, Record Room, Puri. It was further informed that the personal knowledge certificates of the two freedom fighters submitted by the petitioner were to be verified. 2.7. The petitioner further claims that one Satrughana Mansingh, who stands on the same footing, has been receiving such pension. The petitioner again approached this Court in Page 3 of 17 WP(C) No. 5329 of 2016, which was disposed of on 19.08.2016 directing him to submit fresh representation to the Principal Secretary to Government in Finance Department, whereupon the signatures of the two freedom fighters should be sent by the authorities for verification by the concerned bank. Since no action was taken, the petitioner filed a contempt application being CONTC No. 1514 of 2016. 2.8. While the matter stood thus, the impugned order under Annexure-8 was passed by the Finance Department on 27.08.1990 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that he does not fulfill the requisite age criteria as per the resolution dated 09.10.2002 and the certified copy of the voter list of 1988 furnished by the petitioner was found to be not genuine. 2.9. The petitioner claims that his age, as on 01.01.1994, was 70 years, as per the voter identity card issued by the Election Commission of India. Further, as per the certified copy of the voter list issued by the Deputy Collector, Puri, his age, as on 01.01.1988, was 64 years. Page 4 of 17 2.10. He being in his 90s and deprived of his legitimate claim of pension, the petitioner has filed this writ application with the following prayer:- “In the circumstances it I humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue notice as to why this case shall not be allowed and the Opp.parties shall not be directed to sanction State Freedom Fighters‟ Pension (Non-jailed) in favour of the petitioner by considering Annexures-9 and 10 and quashing Annexure-8 and pass any other order(s) as deemed fit and proper;” 3. The stand of the opposite party-authorities, in a nutshell, is that as per the report of the Sub-Collector, Khurda, the petitioner was found to be underage and the Addl. District Magistrate (ADM), Puri reported that the certified copy of the voter list of 1988 furnished by the petitioner was found to be manipulated and not genuine. As such, his claim for grant of pension was rightly rejected. It is also stated that the petitioner had submitted xerox copy of the voter identity card showing his age as 70 years as on 01.01.1994, but xerox copies are unacceptable. As per the resolution dated 09.10.2002, age of the applicant for sanction of freedom fighters’ pension (non- jailed) should be 78 years as on 01.01.2002 and such age should be determined on the basis of the voter list/ electoral Page 5 of 17 roll only. Further, it was decided that the proof of age will be accepted as on the voter identity card only after receipt of authenticated proof of age by the concerned Sub-Collector. In the instant case, the ADM, Puri, in his letter dated 21.09.2016, reported that the age of the petitioner seems illegible, as there is manipulation in the voter list available in the District Election Section, Collectorate, Puri, and that the certified copy of the voter list of 1988 is not genuine. It is also stated that departmental proceeding is being initiated for manipulation of voter list. The Sub-Collector, Khurda, vide letter dated 28.10.2016, reported that the age of the petitioner is 56 years, as per voter list of 2002. It is, however, admitted that the personal knowledge certificates submitted by the petitioner of two freedom fighters were found to be genuine on verification. 4. Heard Shri Sudarsan Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties. 5. Shri Behera would argue that the plight of the petitioner is evident from the fact that even though he was Page 6 of 17 jailed by the British Government for participating in the Quit India Movement at a very young age, he had not obtained any jail certificate from the authorities at the relevant time. As such, despite being a genuine freedom fighter, he has been deprived of pension under the Central Government Scheme, then in vogue. It is only because of the circular issued by the Government of Odisha on 09.10.2002 that he became eligible for grant of freedom fighters’ pension, at least in the non-jailed category. Shri Behera further argues that the authorities ultimately accepted that he had submitted his application within the cut-off date, but rejected his claim only on the ground that he did not fulfill the age criteria of being born before 1924. The petitioner was born on 02.01.1924. His participation in the freedom struggle is certified by two freedom fighters, both of whom are receiving pension. His contention regarding age is proved by the voter identity card issued by the Election Commission of India. As regards the voter list, the petitioner is not in a position to say as to how the same contained any manipulation, if at all. Moreover, on what basis the Sub-collector determined his age as 56 years, has also not Page 7 of 17 been highlighted. Shri Behera concludes his argument by submitting that the self-respect and dignity of a freedom fighter has been questioned by rejecting his claim for pension under the Scheme on frivolous grounds. 6. Shri Patnaik, learned State Counsel would argue that definite guidelines having been laid down by the Government in the circular dated 09.10.2002, the same are required to be adhered to strictly. The said guidelines provide that the applicant must have born before 1924. So, even if brushing aside the other facts, the petitioner, being born on 02.01.1924, as claimed by him, would still not be eligible for grant of pension as per the circular. Further, justifying the rejection of the claim of the petitioner, Shri Patnaik would argue that the petitioner could not prove that he was eligible as per the age criteria by furnishing the required documents. On the contrary, the Sub-collector reported that as per the voter list of 2002, the petitioner was aged 56 years. Moreover, the certified copy of the voter list relied on by the petitioner was found to be not genuine. Page 8 of 17 7. The sequence of events, as narrated, is not disputed. The petitioner originally claims to have been imprisoned for his participation in the freedom struggle. No proof has been furnished in this regard. For such inability, the petitioner staked his claim for freedom fighters’ pension under the non- jailed category, after coming into force of the circular dated 09.10.2002. This Court finds nothing wrong in such approach. Nevertheless, pension under the aforementioned circular can obviously be granted as per the parameters and conditions laid down therein. It is provided that for being eligible to pension, the applicant must have been born before 1924. Coming to the impugned order, it is seen that the two freedom fighters’ certificates submitted by the petitioner were found to be genuine upon verification from the concerned banks. It was also accepted that the petitioner had submitted application prior to the cut-off date, i.e., 27.08.1990. His claim was, however, rejected on the ground that the xerox copy of the certified copy of the voter list of 1988 submitted by the petitioner, which mentions his age as 64 years, is not a genuine document. In this context, the letter dated 21.09.2016 of the Page 9 of 17 ADM, Puri has been referred to. The letter dated 12.10.2012 of the ADM, Puri, a copy of which is enclosed with the said letter dated 21.09.2016, is re-produced herein below for immediate reference:- “DISTRICT OFFICE, PURI (Record Room) No. 139 /RR. Dt.12/10/12/ To The Deputy Secretary, Govt. Finance Department. Bhubaneswar. Sub:- Verification of Age in Voter list. Ref:- Your office letter No.15664/F., Dt.5.4.12 and No.22715/F., No.21290/F., Dt.12.6.12 and No.23813/F., Dt.25.6.12. Dt.29.5.12, Sir, With reference to the letters on the subject cited above I am to say that as the age of the applicants seems “illegible” as there is manipulation in the voter lists available in the District Election Section, Collectorate, Puri. Hence Certified Copies refered for verification as enclosed in your letter are not genuine. Departmental initiated for manipulation of Proceedings Votorlist. is being So, you may prefer in verify the same from the documents/Votorlists available in the Home Election Deptt., Govt. of Odisha for taking further action at your end. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Addl. District Magistrate, Puri” Page 10 of 17 8. A bare reading of the above letter would make it clear that the same is not in the least conclusive as regards the so- called manipulation. To amplify, what exactly was the manipulation done has not been stated. However, the letter mentions that departmental proceeding is being initiated for such manipulation, but is entirely silent as to against whom such proceeding was initiated, if at all. During hearing, documents were produced by the learned State Counsel indicating that departmental proceeding was conducted against a Junior Clerk in the District Election Section, who, being found guilty of manipulation, was imposed with the punishment of withholding of 10% gratuity permanently. This does not improve the case of the opposite parties, inasmuch as, the departmental proceeding appears to have been initiated and concluded during pendency of this writ application. That apart, there is nothing on record to suggest that the manipulation done by the delinquent employee was at the instance of the petitioner. Even accepting the above, it is not understood as to how the petitioner can be blamed for Page 11 of 17 manipulation of the certified copy of the voter list. Moreover, it has not been stated as to what age was mentioned in the original voter list, if not 64, as claimed by the petitioner. In the absence of these vital factual aspects, the observation of the ADM cannot be accepted. 9. Coming to the letter dated 28.10.2016 of the Sub- Collector, the age of the petitioner, as on 01.01.2002, was 56 years. On what basis the same was submitted is not known. Significantly, the said letter mentions the voter identity card number as OR/09/060/27442. Reference to the copy of the voter identity card (copy enclosed as Annexure-9) bearing the same number reveals that the age of the petitioner, as on 01.01.1984, is 70 years. So, on what basis the Sub-Collector mentioned the age of the petitioner as 56 years, as on 01.01.2002, is not known. The only objection to the copy of the voter identity card raised is that it is a xerox copy. This can hardly be treated as an acceptable ground as petitioner, can always be asked to produce the original voter identity card, if available. Page 12 of 17 10. In course of hearing, the petitioner filed the original certified copy of the voter list of the year 2011, wherein his age is mentioned as 87 years. This entirely contradicts the letter of the Sub-Collector mentioning his age as 56 years, as on 01.01.2002. 11. From the above documents, what emerges is that there is proof of participation of the petitioner in the freedom struggle as evident from the personal knowledge certificates of two freedom fighters, which were found to be genuine. The petitioner submitted his application, as per the circular dated 09.10.2002, before the cut-off date. The claim of the authorities that the petitioner was under-aged is belied by their own contradictory records relating to his age as on different dates. On the other hand, the petitioner relies upon his voter identity card issued by the Election Commission of India (and also referred to by the Sub-Collector), which shows his age as 70 years, as on 01.01.1994. The feeble agreement made by the State Counsel, that the petitioner being born on 02.01.1924 is not eligible to get the freedom fighters’ pension, cannot be accepted, as the same was raised for the first time before this Page 13 of 17 Court and it is not found mentioned in the impugned order. Even otherwise, accepting his date of birth as 02.01.1924, the same makes him ineligible, if at all, by only two days. The object of the circular is to honour the freedom fighters for their contribution in the freedom struggle of the country. The Supreme Court, in the case of Gurdial Singh v. Union of India1, observed as follows:- in the “6. The scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. It has to be kept in mind that millions of masses of this country had freedom struggle without any participated expectation of grant of any scheme at the relevant time It has also to be kept in mind that in the partition of the country most of citizens who suffered imprisonment were handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. The problem of getting the record from the foreign country is very cumbersome and expensive. Keeping in mind the object of the scheme, the concerned authorities are required that in appreciating the scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rationale and not a technical approach is required to be adopted. It has also to be kept in mind that the claimants of the scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their life for the country. This Court in Mukand Lal Bhandari’s case (supra) 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 observed: “The object in making the said relaxation was not to reward or compensate the sacrifices made in the freedom struggle. The object was to honour and where it was necessary, also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact, many of those who do not have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it, since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with which they plunged in the Freedom 1. (2001) 8 SCC 8 Page 14 of 17 it Struggle. The spirit of the Scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made. it would be contrary to its spirit to into some kind of a programme of convert compensation. Yet that may be the result if the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever the date the application is made. The scheme should retain its high objective with which it was motivated. It should not further be forgotten that now its benefit is made available irrespective of the income limit. Secondly. and this is equally important to note, since we are by this decision making the benefit of the scheme available irrespective of the date on which the application is made, if would not be advisable to extend the benefit retrospectively. Lastly, the pension under the present Scheme is not the only benefit made available to the freedom fighters or their dependents. The preference in in employment, allotment of accommodation and admission to schools and colleges of their kith and kin etc., are also the other benefits which have been made available to them for quite sometime now.” 12. As regards the standard of proof required for these cases, the Supreme Court further observed in Gurdial Singh (supra) as follows:- “7. The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As the object of the scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by scheme have suffered for the country about half a century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the Page 15 of 17 the basis of to be determined on scheme. The case of the claimants under this scheme is required the probabilities and not on the touch-stone of the test of beyond reasonable doubt. Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence.” 13. This Court, while dealing with the case of grant of pension to a freedom fighter, WPC No.23220 of 2013, observed as follows:- “17. As already stated, the very object of the Scheme is to honour those who had made sacrifices for the country by participating in the freedom movement. In fact, the very ideals that inspired the freedom movement have been acknowledged by the Constitution as something to be remembered and cherished by the citizens as a Fundamental Duty. Article 51- A(b) of the Constitution enjoins upon the citizens to „cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom‟. This is implicit in the 1980 Scheme as crystallized in the guidelines of the Govt. of India referred to herein before. Thus, the action of the authorities must be to further the object of the Scheme and not to frustrate it.” True, the said observations were made in the context of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, but then the underlying principles can be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. Thus, on a conspectus of the analysis of facts and the discussions made thereon, this Court is of the considered Page 16 of 17 view that the authorities have adopted a hyper-technical approach in the matter to reject the claim of the petitioner. It must be kept in mind that, while it can never be the intention to allow any fake claims to subsist, at the same time care should be taken to see that genuine claims are not rejected on mere technicalities. In the instant case, it has not been stated by the authorities that the petitioner has come up with a fake claim. 15. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order of rejection of the petitioner’s claim for freedom fighters’ pension is hereby set aside. The opposite parties are directed to sanction and disburse the admissible amount towards freedom fighters’ pension (non-jailed) in favour of the petitioner, including its arrears, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 16th of May, 2025/ G.D.Samal, JR-cum-PS. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2025 12:47:28 Page 17 of 17