Orissa High Court
Brahmananda Jena vs State Of Odisha & Others ...... Opp. ... on 29 July, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
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
JUDGMENT
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
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.
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
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
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. 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
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
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
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
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
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.
13. 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
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 30-Jul-2025 13:43:05
