The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 34625 of 2021 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Brahmananda Jena ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Nayak, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, __________________________________________ [Additional Government Advocate] CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA J U D G M E N T 29th of July, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner, who is supposedly aged hundred and one years and claims to be a freedom fighter, has approached this Court seeking a direction to the Opposite Party authorities to grant him Freedom Fighter’s Pension. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to have participated in the freedom movement of Page 1 of 11 the country and particularly in Quit India Movement. He applied for grant of Freedom Fighter’s Pension on 17.02.1981 under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 to the Government of India. His application was forwarded to the State Government on 08.05.1984 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The petitioner also applied to the State Government in Finance Department on 16.07.1989. The Home Department, by letter dated 04.10.1989 forwarded the applications of seven applicants including the petitioner to the Finance Department. The petitioner, in his application had enclosed the affidavits of two freedom fighters of the State, who are availing pension, certifying his participation in the freedom movement. While the matter stood thus, the Government of Odisha came out with a resolution on 09.10.2002 laying down guidelines for grant of pension. The said guidelines inter alia, provided that the freedom fighter must have applied for pension on or before 27.08.1990 and must have been eighteen years of age by 1942 i.e., he must have been born before 1924. Page 2 of 11 The guidelines also provided that the age of the freedom fighter shall be determined as per the voter list. The petitioner applied again on 21.03.2019 enclosing all relevant documents. However, no action was taken for which he submitted grievance before the Hon’ble Chief Minister, which was forwarded to the Finance Secretary for necessary action. The Sub-Collector, Cuttack was informed by the Deputy Collector-cum-Deputy District Election Officer, Cuttack by letter dated 30.12.2019 that the copy of the voter list of 2002 is found to be genuine and authentic. Despite the above, no steps were taken to grant him pension. The petitioner was informed in response to his application under the RTI Act that the matter was under process. According to the petitioner, he fulfills the eligibility criteria as per the resolution dated 09.10.2002 and therefore, the inaction of the authorities in the matter is entirely unjustified. 3. The stand of the State Government, as revealed from the counter affidavit and further affidavit filed in the case is that as per records maintained in the Finance Department, the petitioner had not submitted any Page 3 of 11 application in the year 1981 and that he applied on 21.03.2013. He had submitted voter list of the year 2003, which was unable to be considered in view of the resolution dated 09.10.2002, being issued after 2002. The petitioner himself submitted all the requisite documents after a long time. His claim of submitting application in the year 1981 could not be verified from the postal authorities because of lapse of time. The Sub-Collector had verified only the voter list of 2002, as per which his age is eighty two years. Though, the petitioner appears to have fulfilled the age criteria as per voter list of 2002 but said voter list being submitted after a gap of six years from the letter dated 09.10.2013 issued to him, the possibility of manipulation of age by him in the voter list to avail pensionary benefits cannot be ruled out. The matter was therefore, inquired into with reference to the voter lists of the year 1988-2001. On verification of the voter lists of 1988, 1995 and 1999, it was found that he had attained the age of seventy two years as on 01.01.2002 as per the Page 4 of 11 voter lists of 1988 and 1995. But as per the voter list of 1999, he was sixty eight years as on 01.01.2002. As such, he was found to be under aged to claim pension. The petitioner managed to enhance his age by ten years in the voter list of 2002 so as to record his age as eight two years. It is however, admitted that the personal knowledge certificates submitted by the petitioner along with his application were verified and found to be genuine. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 5. Mr. Nayak would argue that the petitioner fulfills all the criteria as per the guidelines contained in the resolution dated 09.10.2002 inasmuch as he was aged eighty two years as per the voter list of 2002 and was duly certified by two freedom fighters, who were granted pension, of having participated in the freedom movement. The so-called discrepancies in the different voter lists cannot be attributed to the petitioner as preparation and maintenance of the voter lists is the responsibility of the Page 5 of 11 concerned authorities. The allegation that the petitioner manipulated the voter list of the year 2002 is completely baseless as the petitioner cannot possibly have any role to play in the preparation of such list. 6. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned AGA on the other hand, would submit that the guidelines clearly stipulate that the person claiming pension must have been born before 1924 and should have applied prior to 27.08.1990. In the instant case, the petitioner could not satisfactorily prove that he had applied prior to his application submitted in the year 2019. Moreover, he could not cogently prove that he was born prior to 01.01.1924. Mr. Patnaik further argues that the policy of the Government is to honour the true freedom fighters but not persons without acceptable proof of participation in the freedom movement of the country. 7. This Court observes that the guidelines contained in the Finance Department resolution dated 09.10.2002 firstly prescribed that the person concerned must have applied for pension prior to 27.08.1990. A stand has been taken by the State in its counter that there Page 6 of 11 is no proof of receipt of any such application being submitted by the petitioner in the Department. This Court, however, finds that the petitioner, in his rejoinder affidavit has enclosed copy of the communication dated 08.05.1984 by the Under Secretary to the Government of India in Ministry of Home Affairs addressed to him referring to his application dated 30.07.1981 under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. He was informed that his case is being processed in consultation with the Government of Odisha. Another document is enclosed to the rejoinder affidavit, which bears the date 04.10.1989 issued by the Section Officer of the Home Department addressed to the Finance Department forwarding seven applications in original received from the persons as per the list enclosed. The name of the petitioner finds place at Sl No.2 of the said list. Thus, the stand that the petitioner had not applied for pension prior to 27.08.1990 is without any basis and hence, not acceptable. 8. The next requirement is regarding age. As per the resolution the applicant must have been born before 1924. As such, he must have completed seventy eight years of Page 7 of 11 age by the year 2002 or in any year prior to 2002. The petitioner enclosed copy of the voter list of the year 2002 wherein his age is mentioned as eighty two years. The verification report of the Deputy Collector-cum-Deputy District Election Officer certifies the authenticity of the said voter list. The same was however, not acceptable to the authorities for two reasons-firstly the voter list was submitted after six years which suggests manipulation and secondly, the age mentioned therein did not match the age mentioned in the previous voter list. 9. It has also been specifically stated that the petitioner has managed to enhance his age by ten years in the voter list in order to avail the pensionary benefits under the scheme. Not a shred of paper is placed before this Court to justify the above stand. Whether any inquiry was conducted in this regard or not is not forthcoming at all from the record. Bereft of even a semblance of an inquiry the conclusion drawn by the authority is nothing but a presumption. Even otherwise, it would be too far- fetched to impute such conduct to an old person. The petitioner obviously could not have had access to the Page 8 of 11 concerned documents during preparation of the voter list so as to be able to manipulate the same. The voter list of 2002 having been certified as genuine and authentic, this Court is unable to accept the contentions raised by the authorities. If at all there was any mismatch, the same is to be attributed to the concerned authorities but not to the petitioner. 10. The other eligibility condition is that the applicant must submit two personal knowledge certificates in shape of affidavit from two freedom fighters of his locality receiving Central or State Freedom Fighter’s Pension. The petitioner submitted two such affidavits, one by Shri Khali Pradhan and the other by Shri Manguli Parida. It is admitted by the State in its counter that the above named persons are in receipt of Freedom Fighter’s Pension. Copies of the affidavits available in the case record reveal that they have personally certified that, the petitioner had remained underground for more than one year during 1942-43 on account of his participation in the 1942 Quit India Movement. Documents are available on record to show that the signatures of above named Page 9 of 11 pension holders were also verified by the District Treasury Officer, Nayagarh and found genuine and authentic. The above, according to this Court, clinches the issue in favour of the petitioner. 11. It is thus seen that the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria as per the resolution dated 09.10.2002 making him eligible for grant of Freedom Fighter’s Pension. This Court has on more than one occasion reiterated the view that it is the solemn duty of the State to honour the freedom fighters for the sacrifices made by them to attain freedom from colonial rule. Of course, this Court hastens to act that it can never be the intention of the Scheme to entertain false, frivolous or fake claims, but care must be taken to ensure that the genuine claims are not thrown out on trivial grounds. 12. Thus from a conspectus of the facts, contentions raised and discussion made, this Court is of the considered view that non-grant of pension by the authorities under the circumstances, cannot be countenanced. Page 10 of 11 13.
Decision
In the result, the writ application is allowed. The Opposite Party authorities are directed to sanction and disburse Freedom Fighter’s Pension to the petitioner as admissible in law without any further delay and in any case, not later than six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 29th of July, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 30-Jul-2025 13:43:05 Page 11 of 11