JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. — The original petitioner- Nanda Kishore Barik knocked the doors of justice by filing the present writ petition in the year 1996 at a ripe old age of 74 years, for quashing the order under Annexure-9 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India in its Ministry of Home Affairs to the origi¬nal petitioner. By Annexure-9, the claim of the original peti¬tioner for grant of freedom fighters’ pension under the Swantan¬tra Sainik Sammana Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘the S.S.S. Scheme’) was rejected. Relevant portion of Annexure-9 is as follows :- “In pursuance of directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the case of Sh. Barik has been reconsidered on the basis of the reports furnished by the State Govt. and in accordance with the provisions of the scheme and instructions issued thereunder, but it has not been found possible to grant him pension as the offi¬cial evidence produced by him does not confirm his claimed jail suffering of six months or more and the personal knowledge cer¬tificate produced by him has been found to be false and forged because the certifier Sh. Purusottam Naik has confirmed that he has neither issued this certificate in favour of Sh. Barik nor he has any knowledge of any such person in freedom movement.” 2. If the case of the original petitioner is to be be¬lieved, it would appear that he spent his entire youth in active¬ly involving himself in the freedom movement of the country from 1941 to 1944, when he absconded and remained under ground for one year from 9.9.1942 to 9.9.1943. He was involved in a case No.512 of 1942 in the Court of Shri M.N. Guha, Magistrate, Kendrapara disposed of on 9.9.1942 directing imprisonment of the original petitioner for one year. However, he went under ground for the period as mentioned above and was declared as a proclaimed of¬fender and jail warrant was issued. The freedom fighter pension scheme was introduced by the Government of India in the year 1972 with the avowed purpose of recognizing persons, who actively took part in the freedom movement of the country, and granting them pension under the said scheme and satisfying the eligibility criteria prescribed in the said scheme. The freedom fighter pension scheme was introduced by the Government of India in the year 1972 with the avowed purpose of recognizing persons, who actively took part in the freedom movement of the country, and granting them pension under the said scheme and satisfying the eligibility criteria prescribed in the said scheme. The persons, who remained under ground, but did not suffer imprisonment if they were (i) proclaimed offenders (ii) those cases on whom awards for arrest had been announced but were not arrested, or (iii), those cases, on whom detention orders were issued but not served, would be eligible to receive pension under the said scheme. The original petitioner applied for grant of petition under the said scheme, but the State Government and the Central Government having re¬jected the same, he filed O.J.C. No.850 of 1993 challenging such rejection. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 19.04.1993 by this Court, directing the authorities of the State Government to verify and find out if the original petitioner is at all entitled to get the pension and on verification, the matter may be recommended to the Union of India for appropriate action. On receipt of the said order, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Finance Department, by his letter dated 21.9.1993 refused the claim of the petitioner under the S.S.S. Pension Scheme. In view of such refusal by letter dated 14.12.1993, the Central Government also in its Ministry of Home Affairs rejected the claim of the original petitioner. The origi¬nal petitioner after receipt of the letter from the concerned authorities made another application giving further details and the State Government after due enquiry granted State Pension to the original petitioner with effect from 15.4.1992 and since then, he was receiving the same. However, though the State Gov¬ernment granted such pension, but did not recommend to the Cen¬tral Government for payment of Central Pension to him under the scheme. The original petitioner again approached this Court in O.J.C. No.6713 of 1994 seeking a direction to the State Govern¬ment to recommend the case of the petitioner to the Central Gov¬ernment. The said writ petition was disposed of on 7.11.1994 wherein this Court directed the appropriate authority of the State Government to make due recommendation to the Union of India so that the Union Government shall pass necessary orders thereon. The said writ petition was disposed of on 7.11.1994 wherein this Court directed the appropriate authority of the State Government to make due recommendation to the Union of India so that the Union Government shall pass necessary orders thereon. After receipt of such direction from this Court, the appropriate authority of the State Government made recommendation to the Cen¬tral Government with a copy marked to the original petitioner dated 16.5.1995. In the said letter, the State Government, while making recommendations, gave certain adverse views, which reads as follows :- (a) It reveals from the Court records that order of warrant of arrest was issued against Nanda Kishore Barik in Case No.512/42 by the then Magistrate of Kendrapara on 09.09.42 but the section under which the warrant was issued and the address of the pro¬claimed offender has not been mentioned in the Court record. (b) The issue of the above record was confirmed by the Addl.District Magistrate, Cuttack. (c) The petitioner was granted pension under the scheme from 15.4.1992 on liberal grounds. (d) The personal knowledge certificate issued by Purusottam Nayak was requested by the concerned Department to give the details of the activities of the petitioner but Shri Nayak re¬plied to the Department that he has neither issued any personal knowledge certificate nor he has any knowledge about such persons at Freedom Movement.” 3. Upon receiving the same, the Under Secretary to the Government of India in its Ministry of Home Affairs communicated the decision of the Central Government to the original petitioner on 20.7.1995 under Annexure-9 to the writ petition, which has been impugned in the present writ petition. 4. The Union of India and the State of Orissa have been impleaded as opp.parties 1 and 2 in the writ petition. Upon rule being issued, only the State of Orissa-opp.party No.2 filed a return, to which, the original writ petitioner has also filed a rejoinder affidavit. The original petitioner - Nanda Kishore Barik waiting for justice ultimately expired on 31.5.2005 leaving behind his widow, three major sons and three married daughters. The widow of the original petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 186 of 2006 for being substituted in place of the original petitioner-Nanda Kishore Barik and, accordingly, the said application having been allowed, she has been impleaded as petitioner in place of her deceased husband - Nanda Kishore Barik, in this case. 5. The widow of the original petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 186 of 2006 for being substituted in place of the original petitioner-Nanda Kishore Barik and, accordingly, the said application having been allowed, she has been impleaded as petitioner in place of her deceased husband - Nanda Kishore Barik, in this case. 5. Under the S.S.S. Scheme, there is provision for payment of family pension to the widow of the freedom fighters. In clause-3 of the said scheme, the persons to be considered as eligible dependents have been mentioned as follows :- “WHO ARE ELIGIBLE DEPENDENTS For the purpose of grant of Samman pension, family includes (if the freedom fighter is not alive) mother, father, widow/widow if he/she has not since remarried, unmarried daughters. Not more than one eligible dependent can be granted pension and in the event of availability of more than one dependent the sequence of eligibility will be widow/widower, unmarried daugh¬ters, mother and father.” 6. In view of such provision in the scheme, if ultimately, it is held that the original petitioner was entitled to receive the freedom fighters pension from the Central Government; his widow would be eligible to receive such arrear amounts as well as family pension after the death of her husband. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the State of Orissa, it has been averred that the original petitioner failed to satis¬fy the authority by producing relevant documents with regard to his eligibility to receive the pension under the S.S.S. Scheme. The Court record produced by the original petitioner though reveals that a warrant of arrest was issued, but it does not reveal the relevant section under which the case was initiated. It also does not reveal the address of the accused in the said case, being Nanda Kishore Barik, which is vitally required for identifying the genuineness of his claim. The personal knowledge certificate, which was furnished, was found to be false as the Certificate categorically stated not to have issued any such certificate. During a subsequent enquiry, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that a local enquiry was made to examine the case of the original petitioner by the Joint Secretary to Finance Department and relying on the statements annexed as Annexure-B/2, C/2 and D/2, a detailed report was sent to the Central Government vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 8. During a subsequent enquiry, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that a local enquiry was made to examine the case of the original petitioner by the Joint Secretary to Finance Department and relying on the statements annexed as Annexure-B/2, C/2 and D/2, a detailed report was sent to the Central Government vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 8. On going through the Annexure-B/2, C/2 and D/2, it appears that the said witnesses have either stated that they did not know the original petitioner - Nanda Kishore Barik or that they are ignorant of the fact whether the original petitioner took part in the freedom struggle or not. The personal knowledge certificates issued by one Purusottam Nayak, which have been annexed to the writ petition as Annexures-10 and 11 having been alleged to be forged in the counter affidavit, in course of hearing, by order dated 24.1.2007, notice was issued to the said Shri Purusottam Nayak calling upon him to file an affidavit with regard to the correctness of the certificate granted by him in favour of the original petitioner. 9. The said Purusottam Nayak appeared through his counsel and filed an affidavit sworn to by him (Shri Purusottam Nayak) stating that he is unable to recollect the facts pleaded due to old age. In view of such disputed facts, this Court has no other alternative, but to decide the writ petition bereft of the said disputed question of facts. 10. In paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit of the State Government, it has been stated as follows :- “8. That as already stated, the petitioner does not come within the frame-work of the scheme and hence is not entitled to any pension under the said scheme. Moreover, the petitioner made an application under the scheme in the year 1987. After the said State Level Freedom Fighters Pension Committee rejected the petitioner’s claim on 15.4.92, the petitioner preferred O.J.C. No.850/93, which was disposed of for making further verification. In pursuance of such order, the State Government examined the alleged certifier as aforesaid and accordingly sent the verifica¬tion report vide Annexure-4. After the Central Government reject¬ed the petitioner’s claim under Annexure-5, the same was chal¬lenged in O.J.C. No.6713//94. In pursuance of the orders passed in the said writ petition, again local enquiry was conducted and report was sent vide Annexure-8. After the Central Government reject¬ed the petitioner’s claim under Annexure-5, the same was chal¬lenged in O.J.C. No.6713//94. In pursuance of the orders passed in the said writ petition, again local enquiry was conducted and report was sent vide Annexure-8. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s claim was not examined in due process of law. As a matter of fact, the petitioner’s claim has been thor¬oughly examined and verification report had been sent to the Central Government as required under the scheme. Therefore, the grant of Freedom Fighter pension by the State Government with effect from 15.4.92 ipso facto does not make petitioner entitled to S.S.S. Pension under the Scheme as he is not eligible as per the requirements of the said scheme. Therefore, the report of the State Government and the order of the Central Government passed thereon under Annexures-8 and 9 respectively cannot be faulted with. 11. From the above statement made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that the State Government had pleaded that the grant of freedom fighter pension by the State Government with effect from 15.4.1992 ipso facto does not make the petitioner entitled to S.S.S. Pension under the scheme as he is not eligible as per the said scheme. It is, therefore, clear that the State Govern¬ment has admitted that the original petitioner was being paid pension under the S.S.S. Scheme by the State Government. This fact has not been disputed by the Union of India. Hence, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the above fact that pension under the S.S.S. Scheme having been paid to the said late Nanda Kishore Barik, a presumption arises that the State authorities finding him eligible for grant of pension under the said scheme paid him such pension. Pension to the freedom fighters under the scheme being paid, both by the concerned State Government and the Central Government simultaneously. A person, who is found eligi¬ble to receive pension under the S.S.S. Scheme and is being paid or was being paid, such pension by the State Government cannot be held to be ineligible to receive such pension under the same scheme from the Central Government. 12. A person, who is found eligi¬ble to receive pension under the S.S.S. Scheme and is being paid or was being paid, such pension by the State Government cannot be held to be ineligible to receive such pension under the same scheme from the Central Government. 12. Since it is an admitted case that the original peti¬tioner - Nanda Kishore Barik was receiving freedom fighters pension under the S.S.S. Scheme from the State Government, the Union Government could not have denied such pension to him on the ground that he is not eligible to receive such pension under the scheme. 13. Considering such position, this Court holds that the late husband of the petitioner was entitled to receive pension under the S.S.S. Scheme from the Union Government from the date when such pension was paid to him by the State Government. 14. In view of the above conclusion, the order under Annex¬ure-9 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India in its Ministry of Home Affairs to the late husband of the petition¬er rejecting the claim of the original petitioner - Nanda Kishore Barik for grant of freedom fighters pension under the S.S.S. Scheme, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order under Annex¬ure-9 is quashed and the opp.party No.1 - Union of India is directed to pay the petitioner the arrear pension payable under the Scheme from the date from which such pension was sanctioned in favour of the original petitioner, by the State Government i.e., from 15.4.1992 till he expired on 31.5.2005. The petition¬er, being the widow of the said freedom fighter, is entitled to the amount of pension payable to the widow of the freedom fighter under the S.S.S. Scheme with effect from the date of death of her husband i.e., 31.5.2005 by both the State Government as well as the Union Government. It is further directed that the arrear amount of pension/family pension payable to the petitioner, being the widow of a freedom fighter, with effect from 31.5.2005 shall also be paid to her and the current pension amount shall be paid to her regularly. The entire exercise with regard to payment of arrear amount, as stated above, to the petitioner shall be com¬pleted by both the opp.parties within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without cost. Petition allowed.