The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal and non-technical approach in determining the merits of a freedom fighter's claim for the Freedom Fighters Pension, emphasizing the acceptance of secondary evidence and the importance of considering the genuineness of the claim.

JUDGMENT :

D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Challenge has been made to the illegal refusal made by the opposite party no. 1 to sanction Freedom Fighters Pension to the petitioner under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter called Pension Scheme).

FACTS

2. The unshorn details leading to the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, being freedom fighter, actively participated during the movement for independence of India and mobilised the people not to give taxes and to object the construction of road and road tax and other taxes to the English people for which the petitioner was imprisoned in Rajdarbar of Talcher from 23.1.1944 to 25.12.1945 with the other punishment of canning and kicks. As such, the petitioner claims for the Freedom Fighters Pension under the Pension Scheme from the Central Revenue for which he had to file a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 9074 of 1997 before this Court and vide order dated 26.3.2012, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to make an application under the Scheme by enclosing all the relevant documents to the Chief Secretary of the State Government, who was further directed to take a decision within certain period.

3. In pursuance of the order dated 26.3.2012, the petitioner made representation on 10.8.2012 to the State Government and the Union of India along with the supported documents. After receiving the application, the Union of India sent a letter to the State Government on 6.9.2012 along with the application of the petitioner and all documents for verification and to give report on that application for implementation of the order passed by this Court on 26.3.2012. Thereafter, again the Union of India asked for some documents which are not possible on the part of the petitioner to arrange. However, the petitioner applied to the Jail Authority of Special Jail, Talcher requesting him to furnish the details of the detention in jail custody and also requested the co-prisoners namely Bichhanda Ch. Pradhan and Dila Sahu to give co-prisoner certificate. After arranging document, the petitioner made representation whereafter the matter was referred to the Union of India by the State Government. By virtue of the letter dated 6.2.2014, opposite party no. 1 informed the petitioner through the State Government that the request for Freedom Fighters Pension has been rejected because the State Government has not sent the required information or documents. The State Government, on 6.2.2014, also issued a letter to the petitioner asking to furnish the co-prisoner certificate in the prescribed formant from the freedom fighter who had undergone jail to the State Government for recommending the case of the petitioner to Government of India for reconsideration by the Union of India for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension. The petitioner also complied the requirement but the State Government informed the petitioner that the Union of India has suo motu rejected his representation again on flimsy grounds although in absence of jail records for the period between 1944 and 1945, the petitioner has already furnished certificate of co-prisoners to receive the Freedom Fighters Pension under the Pension Scheme. Since both the opposite parties did not consider the sanction of pension under the Scheme to the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Per contra, the opposite party no. 1 has filed counter affidavit stating therein that under the Pension Scheme, the persons are entitled to pension, if they fulfil the criteria mentioned therein. Be it stated that the petitioner ought to have furnished the following documents to claim pension under the Pension Scheme as per the criteria herein below:

“xx xx xx xx

(a) In case of imprisonment a certificate from the concerned jail authority, District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release.

(b) In case t