STATE OF ORISSA versus CHOUDHURI NAYAK (DEAD BY LR) & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 20-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(201 O] 10 S.C.R. 615 
STATE OF ORISSA 
V. 
CHOUDHURI NAYAK (DEAD BY LR) & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6818 of 2010) 
AUGUST 20, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 - Pension 
under - Granted to first respondent - Cancelled by Central 
Government on the basis that first respondent secured the C 
same on the basis of false and fabricated documents -
Justification of - Held: Justified - Grant of freedom fighters' 
pension to bogus claimants producing false and fabricated 
documents is as bad as genuine freedom fighters being 
denied pension - The Government should weed out false and D 
fabricated claims and cancel the grant when the bogus nature 
of the claim comes to light. 
The first respondent filed an application for grant of 
freedom fighters' pension under the Freedom Fighters E 
Pension Scheme, 1972 on the basis that in 1943 he had 
been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) under 
Rule 38(5) of the Defence of India Rules (DIR) and 
sentenced to seven months simple imprisonment. As 
proof of the imprisonment, the first respondent produced 
a certified extract of the entries made in the challan 
F 
register of 1943 in the office of SDO. The first respondent 
was, accordingly, sanctioned freedom fighters pension 
by the State Government and the Central Government. 
Subsequently, a Public Interest Litigation was filed G 
before the High Court alleging that the first respondent 
had secured Freedom Fighters Pension by producing 
false and fabricated documents and that an inspection of 
the challan register of 1943 in the office of the SDO 
615 
H 
I 
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
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 
C 
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 
o 
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: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(i) 
The object of the scheme was to honour, and 
where necessary, to mitigate the sufferings of 
those who had struggled to achieve 
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. 
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 
D 
are by old persons with no proper records. 
(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 
Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India 1993 Supp. (3) 
SCC 2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.