JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner, claiming to be a freedom fighter has prayed for quashing Annexure-6 by which the State Government refused to recommend his name for grant of pension according to the Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter, referred to as the ?Scheme?) framed by the Union Government and for issuance of a writ of mandamus against the opposite parties to recommend and grant the pension. 2. Facts not disputed are as follows: The Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Collectorate of Balasore on 11-9-1939. In the year 1942, during the Quit India Movement organised by the Indian National Congress, he was discharged from service because of his political activities against the British Government. In 1946 when the Congress Ministry was installed in Orissa, on his representation and after due enquiry he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk by order of the Collector with effect from 1-8-1947 (Annexures 2 and 3). He retired from,service in 1971. Because he was a political sufferer during the Quit India Movement and so was regarded as a freedom fighter, he submitted an application along with Annexure-5 for pension according to the Scheme. Unfortunately, by the impugned letter (Annexure-6) his case was not considered and so the State Government did not recommend his name to the. Union Government for pension (Annexure-B/l). 3. Mr. B. Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, .relied upon Circular No. 58/74 dated 6-6-1974 and urged that the name of the Petitioner should have been recommended by the State Government to the Union Government for payment of Pension according to the Scheme, because he was a political sufferer, He particularly made reference to para 3 (a) thereof which is quoted below for easy reference: 3. It has also been decided that the following categories of freedom fighters should not be made eligible for the grant of pension: (a) Persons who were dismissed/removed/resigned from service and later reinstated/re-employed and/or given benefits including arrear of pay and pension. 4. The sole ground on which the State Government as per Annexure-6 did not recommend the name of the Petitioner was that although he was removed from service, he was later re-employed as a Lower Division Clerk in the same office and eventually after attaining the age .0? superannuation he retired from service. Thus, he was not a sufferer. 4. The sole ground on which the State Government as per Annexure-6 did not recommend the name of the Petitioner was that although he was removed from service, he was later re-employed as a Lower Division Clerk in the same office and eventually after attaining the age .0? superannuation he retired from service. Thus, he was not a sufferer. It is pertinent to point out that the State Government did not challenge the facts that the Petitioner was removed from service, because he took part in the freedom struggle during the Quit India Movement in the year 1942 and was re-appointed on 1-8-1947 because he made a representation to the then Congress Ministry of the Province. There is also nothing to indicate that he was reinstated in service and was given financial benefits for the lost years of service including arrears of salary etc.. On the? other hand, as would appear from Annexure-3. he was given a fresh appointment by which he lost the salary and other emoluments which he would have ordinarily received had he continued in service from the date of his removal from service in the year 1942 till 1-8-1947. Therefore, the embargo created in para 3 (a) of Annexure-A-1 was not applicable to his case and so there was no reason why his case should not have been recommended by the State Government to the Union- Government. 5. After hearing learned Counsel appearing for both parties and considering the peculiar facts of the case, I am of the view that the State Government should recommend the name of the Petitioner to the Union Government for pension according to the provisions of the Scheme. 6. In the result, therefore, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus should issue to the State Government (opposite party No. 1) to recommend the name of the Petitioner for payment of pension according to the provisions of the Scheme. There shall be no order as to costs. H.L. Agrawal, C.J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed