p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22549 of 2023 Balabhadra Sahoo & Others ..... Petitioners Mr. S. B. Mohanty, Advocate -Versus- Union of India & Another ..... Opp. Parties Mr. P. K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. B. K. Padhi, CGC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 06.01.2025 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioners are the legal heirs of one Agadhu Sahoo, who claims to have been a Freedom Fighter and imprisoned in connection therewith in the year 1942-43. He also took part in the Dasapalla Praja Mandal Movement in 1938 besides participating in the Quit India Movement. He was granted Freedom Fighters’ Pension under Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme, 1972 as he was found to have been imprisoned for a period of 7 months and 15 days, i.e., 11.10.1942 to 26.05.1943, in connection with G.R. Case No.82 of 1942. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the Petitioner’s case is that the pension so granted to Agadhu Sahoo was subsequently stopped by order dated 03.06.1994 on the ground that he was not eligible for the same, as his name does not find place in record of G.R. Case No.82 of 1942. He approached this Court challenging the same in O.J.C. No.2189 of 1996, which was, however, dismissed. Challenging the order of dismissal, he preferred an intra-Court appeal being W.A No.35 of 2010. As per order dated 04.03.2011, Order No. 06. p. 2 a Division Bench of this Court while refusing to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, held that if the Appellant (Agadhu Sahoo) has got any documentary evidence in support of his claim, he is at liberty to file an application along with the relevant supporting documents before the appropriate authority seeking payment of Freedom Fighters’ Pension in his favour and in such event, the concerned authority shall consider the same within a stipulated period. However, the Government of Odisha, Finance Department, by order dated 26.05.2011 again rejected his prayer on the ground that he could not produce any documentary evidence of jail suffering. He challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.(C) No.20707 of 2011. By order dated 28.06.2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Writ Petition with the finding that two vital pieces of evidence, which are official documents, are not in consonance with the spirit of the order passed in W.A No.35 of 2010. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the Principal Secretary to Government in Department of Finance was directed to consider the claim in accordance with law within four weeks, taking into account the order passed in the Writ Appeal as above. 4. The State challenged the order passed by this Court before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) NO. 224 of 2013, but the same came to be dismissed. Despite dismissal of the SLP, the Special Secretary to Government in Finance Department again rejected the claim on the ground of absence of conclusive proof of his imprisonment in connection with the Freedom Movement. 5. This is how the Petitioner is before this Court yet again. Page 3 of 4 6. On direction being issued by this Court, the State Counsel has obtained the original G.R. Register of the year 1942-43 and 1943-44 of the Office of Sub-Collector, Nayagarh. Serial No.75 contains the names of 12 accused persons including the name of Agadhu Sahoo. Learned State Counsel fairly submits that the name is mentioned in the G.R. Case Register as being one of the accused persons in a case relating to unlawful assembly and burning of the bungalow, school and houses etc. On a query posed by this Court, learned State Counsel submits that this prima facie, corroborates the evidence submitted vide Annexure-2, whereby Agadhu Sahoo was certified to have been imprisoned from 11.10.1942 to 26.05.1943 in connection with Quit India Movement. 7. In view of the availability of the primary evidence of the Freedom Fighter’s incarceration for more than 6 months in connection with the Freedom Movement, there is no reason as to why his claim for restoration of the pension under the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme shall not be considered favourably. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Application is disposed of directing the Secretary to Government in Finance Department to reconsider the case by taking note of the primary evidence obtained by the learned State Counsel relating to the incarceration of Agadhu Sahoo for more than 7 months in connection with Quit India Movement and to pass necessary orders as early as possible preferably, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the Petitioners. The original G.R. Case Register shall be made available by the State Counsel to the p. 4 Finance Secretary. 9. It is needless to mention that if the Petitioners’ claim is found to be corroborated by the primary evidence as mentioned above, necessary orders to release the pension along with the arrears shall be passed in their favour without any further delay and in any case, not later than two months thereafter. 10. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Gitanjali