P. C. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the resolution of the State Government dated 11-10-1995 (copy whereof is Annexure 3 to the writ petition) whereby while revising the rate of State Freedom Fighters Pension from Rs. 300/- to Rupees 500/-, the State token Freedom Fighter Pension payable to Freedom Fighters or their dependants who are in receipt of S. S. S. Pension from the Central Revenue has not been revised. According to the petitioner, the action in not simultaneously revising the rate of pension payable to the S. S. S. Pension holders amounts to discrimination and liable to be quashed. The further prayer is for a direction to the opposite party No. 1 to enhance the rate of pension of the S. S. S. Pension holders at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from 11-10-1995 with a direction to pay the arrears within a stipulated period. ( 2 ) TO begin with, we may state that there is some confusion in the petition as to who, in fact, is the petitioner. As is clear from the cause title, the petitioner is described as"all India Freedom Fighter's Organisation, Orissa Branch, represented through one of its Member Sri Bhagaban Satapathy. . . . . . . . . . ". However, in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a citizen of India and permanent resident of the State of Orissa and again in paragraph 5 thereof, it is stated that "the petitioner is a freedom fighter in the State of Orissa and was granted with the Central Freedom Fighter's Pension by the Union of India. . . . . . . "from the contents of the other paragraphs of the writ petition also it appears that All India Freedom Fighter's Organisation is not the petitioner but, in fact, Bhagaban Satapathy is the petitioner. So that as it may, since this petition is stated to be in the representative capacity by the All India Freedom Fighter's Organisation, Orissa Branch and in view of Annexure 7 by which Bhagaban Satapathy has been authorised to file the present writ petition, we treat this petition to be in a representative capacity. So that as it may, since this petition is stated to be in the representative capacity by the All India Freedom Fighter's Organisation, Orissa Branch and in view of Annexure 7 by which Bhagaban Satapathy has been authorised to file the present writ petition, we treat this petition to be in a representative capacity. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed that a scheme was framed by the Central Government in the name and style of "central Freedom Fighter's Pension" under which a provision was made for grant of pension to the freedom fighters who fulfilled the eligibility criteria laid-down therein. This scheme was later renamed as"swatantra Sainik Sammana Pension (in short, 'sssp' ). Subsequently, the State of Orissa had also resolved to grant State Freedom Fighter Pension under the State Pension Scheme. Under the scheme, admittedly, cases of even those freedom fighters who did not fully satisfy the norms of Central Pension Scheme but had undergone some imprisonment or were absconders could be considered. A decision was also taken for those freedom fighters who have been or will be granted pension under the State Scheme may continue to enjoy the same along with pension, if any, granted under the Central Scheme and that sanction of State Pension will be effective from the date of issue of orders in that behalf. Subsequently, a decision was also taken by a resolution dated 8-3-1984 (Annexure 2) by way of modification of State Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme to the effect that such of the freedom fighters who are in receipt of Central Pension would be entitled to receive "a token State Freedom Fighter's Pension of Rs. 40/- per month with effect from the 1st January, 1984. . . . . . . . "accordingly, on a consideration of their cases and such of the freedom fighters who are in receipt of the Central Pension were held entitled to a token State Pension of Rs. 40/- per month. This was also the rate of pension payable under the State Scheme. The rate of pension was increased to Rs. 100/- with effect from 2-10-1984, Rupees 200/- with effect from 1-1-1986 and Rs. 300/- with effect from 1-7-1987 and payable to both, under the State Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme as well as token State Pension Scheme payable to the SSSP. This was also the rate of pension payable under the State Scheme. The rate of pension was increased to Rs. 100/- with effect from 2-10-1984, Rupees 200/- with effect from 1-1-1986 and Rs. 300/- with effect from 1-7-1987 and payable to both, under the State Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme as well as token State Pension Scheme payable to the SSSP. Subsequently, vide resolution No. FFV (SLG)-12/95/39835 dated 11-10-1995 (Annexure 3) of the Government of Orissa in the Finance Department, the rate of pension payable to the State Freedom Fighter was revised from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/- per month. However, it was further resolved that there shall be no change in the rate of State token Freedom Fighter Pension being granted to the Freedom Fighters or their dependants who are in receipt of the Pension from the Central revenue. This has brought the petitioner before this Court. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner is that since all along the petitioner and SSS Pension holders were getting the State token pension at the rate payable to the State Freedom Fighters which was at par with the rate that was payable to the State Freedom Fighter Pensioners, the action is not paying Rs. 500/- to the central pensionars is discriminatory being violative of the principles contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is the submission that since all along the payment of pension was at par, there was no reason to differentiate between the two by treating them as belonging to two separate classes. The action, according to the petitioner, being unjust-unfair and inequitable, is liable to be quashed. And consequently, they be held entitled to receive the same rate of pension as payable to the State Freedom Fighters. ( 5 ) THE relief claimed is opposed by the opposite party No. 1 State. The case of the opposite, party No. 1 is that the revision of the rate of pension payable to the State Freedom Fighters was brought about because of the inadequacy of the amount which was being paid to them. It was decided not to raise the rate of token pension payable to the SSSP pensioners as they were getting much higher pension and benefits under the Central Scheme. It was decided not to raise the rate of token pension payable to the SSSP pensioners as they were getting much higher pension and benefits under the Central Scheme. This was, therefore, a policy decision which was well within the competence of the State Government which cannot be said to be discriminatory, unjust or unfair. The prayer, therefore, is for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 6 ) IT was not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that though imprisonment for any period in the cause of freedom struggle entitles the petitioner to pension under the State Scheme undergoing of minimum imprisonment in the cause of freedom struggle was a must for entitlement under the Central Scheme. Thus, we might say, the eligibility criteria under the two schemes is different, which necessarily means that for the purpose of pension, there would be two categories of pensioners, (i) those who are coming under the Central Scheme, and (ii) those was are not coming within the purview of the Central Scheme, but falling under the State Scheme. Moreover, the schemes are also separate and distinct. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that all should be treated as falling under one category cannot be accepted. Though all getting the pension whether under the Central Scheme or the State Scheme are freedom fighters, the two schemes themselves have brought about two separate classes, which fact cannot be denied. That apart, these are two separate schemes - one by the Central Government and the other by the State Government and, as such, they have to be treated as two separate and distinct schemes. ( 7 ) IT cannot be denied that in the initial scheme framed by the State Government, it was resolved to pay the pension under the State Scheme also to those who were getting pension under the Central Scheme but the subsequent resolution dated 8-3-1984 indicates that what was payable to the freedom fighters who are in receipt of Central Pension was "a token State Freedom Fighters Pension" which at that point of time was fixed at Rs. 40/- per month which was also the rate of pension payable under the State Scheme. 40/- per month which was also the rate of pension payable under the State Scheme. May be from time to time the rate of token pension payable to the Central Pensioners or to those receiving SSSP was at par with the pension payable under the State Scheme but this cannot mean that what was payable to the pensioners under the SSSP scheme was something other than a "token pension". The fact that it was termed as a token pension itself indicates that it was not, in fact, a regular pension payable to those eligible under the State Scheme but was a 'token' benefit extended to those receiving pension under the Central Scheme. Thus, the State Scheme itself provided for two sets of pensioners; (i) who were not covered by the Central Scheme but come under the State Schemes, and (ii) who were beneficiaries under the Central Scheme but were also brought within the State Scheme for grant of token pension, since this was the position, it was within the competence of the State Government to consider and decide as to what would be the rate of pension payable to those falling exclusively within the State Scheme and who were not deriving any benefit under the Central Scheme on the one hand and those who are drawing larger benefit under the State Scheme but were also held entitled to a token benefit under the State Scheme on the other. ( 8 ) AT this stage, it will be worthwhile to make a reference to the benefits/entitlement of a freedom fighter under the Central Scheme vis-a-vis the entitlement of a freedom fighter under the State Scheme which is extracted from the counter as under :"entitlement of a Freedom Fighter who is awarded punishment of imprisonment of six months or more (For which the petitioner is also entitled ). Entitlement of a freedom fighter who is awarded punishment of imprisonment of less than six months. (1) (2) 1. Rs. 3,000. 00 per month from Central Revenue as S. S. S. Pension. Nil2. Rs. 300. 00 per month as token State F. F. Pension from State Revenue. Rs. 500. 00 per month from State Revenue as State F. F. Pension. Total Rs. 33. 00 per month. Total Rs. 500. 00 per month. 3. Free Railway Travel in 1st Class throughout India for two persons. 3. Nil4. Nil2. Rs. 300. 00 per month as token State F. F. Pension from State Revenue. Rs. 500. 00 per month from State Revenue as State F. F. Pension. Total Rs. 33. 00 per month. Total Rs. 500. 00 per month. 3. Free Railway Travel in 1st Class throughout India for two persons. 3. Nil4. Free Travel by O. S. R. T. C. Buses throughout Orissa for two persons. 4. Free Travel by O. S. R. T. C. Buses through-out Orissa for two persons". If after taking into consideration various aspects including the low rate of pension payable to freedom fighters under the State Scheme, the State Government decided to revise the rate of pension only with respect to the State pensioners and not with respect to those receiving pension under the Central Scheme, we feel, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the State Government. ( 9 ) IF we may say so, the pension payable to freedom fighters cannot be equated with the pension payable to the employees after their retirement under the service conditions. That pension is not a bounty but the pension payable under the various freedom fighters pension scheme, in our view, is a bounty. This is definitely at the discretion of the Government which has the power to make a scheme regarding its payment and likewise has the power to withdraw it. It, therefore, necessarily follows that the Government has also power to modify the rate or prescribe different rates of pension for freedom fighters exclusively covered by the State Scheme and those being considered for token pension under its scheme. Therefore, the impugned action cannot be said to be discriminatory. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs. ( 11 ) P. K. MOHANTY, J. , I agree. Petition dismissed.