The court emphasized the importance of recognizing and appreciating the services of freedom fighters and the need for a proper and just approach when dealing with allegations of false information or manipulation in the context of pension grants under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972.

D. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in these writ applications seek to quash the orders passed by the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi suspending the payment of pension to the petitioners under 'freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972' and subsequently cancelling payment of pension.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts in both the cases are similar. Both the cases were heard together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Accordingly, both the writ applications are disposed of by this common judgement.

( 3 ) SHORN of unnecessary details, the case set out in the writ applications is that the Government of India made a scheme known as 'freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972' commencing from 15th August, 1972 to provide for grant of pension to the living freedom fighters, their families, if they are no more alive and to the families of martyrs. For the purposes of the scheme, a freedom fighter was defined as "a person who has suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before independence. However, Ex-INA and Ex-Military personnel will be eligible for pension if the imprisonment/detention suffered by them was outside India. " under the said scheme the petitioner applied to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi in the prescribed pro forma for grant of pension. Panu Charan Mohapatra, petitioner in O. J. C. No. 1012 of 1979, claimed to be a freedom fighter having suffered imprisonment for a total period of 7 months 15 days, i. e. from 11-10-1942 to 26-5-1943 under the order of the then Ruling Chief, Nayagarh, during the Quit India Movement. The applicant submitted some documents in support of his claim. Similarly, Bhramarbar Majhi, petitioner in O. J. C. No. 1013 of 1979, claimed to be a freedom fighter having suffered imprisonment/detention for a total period of 7 months 15 days i. e. from 11-10-1942 to 26-5-1943 under order of the then Ruling Chief, Nayagarh, during the Quit India Movement. Both the petitioners claimed to have been lodged in different camp jails at Nayagarh. Panu Charan Mohapatra claimed to have been detained in the camp jail in Badachhauni Math in Nayagarh while Bhramarbar Majhi claimed to have been detained in the camp jail at K. C. Club. On their applications, the petitioners were sanctioned pension at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month with effect from 15th August, 1972 and they received the said amount till the end of October, 1974, when payment was suspended under the impugned order. The petitioners were issued show cause notice to explain why the grant of pension in their favour would not be cancelled. They submitted their show-cause. According to the petitioners, without any further enquiry, the orders cancelling the grant of pension were passed. The petitioners challenged the order of suspension/cancellation of pension to them on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, arbitrariness and discriminatory treatment.

( 4 ) THE Union of India, opposite party No. 2 in the writ applications, in its counteraffidavit while admitting the position that the petitioners were granted pension at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month under the scheme, has taken the stand that the said payments were provisional in nature subject to further enquiry and review. Initially the grant was made on the basis of the report forwarded by the State Government that the petitioners were freedom fighters eligible for grant of pension under the scheme and subsequently, suspension and cancellation of the said payment were made also on the basis of reports received from the State Government that the applicants claim that they were lodged in different camp jails at Nayagarh were found to be incorrect since there was no camp jail at Nayagarh during the relevant period. Thus, the Union of India has taken the stand that its decision under the impugned orders was passed on enquiry not by its own agency but by the State Government