STATE OF ORISSAversusCHOUDHURI NAYAK (DEAD BY LR) & ORS.

                   (201 O] 10 S.C.R. 615


                   STATE OF ORISSA                           A
                            V.
      CHOUDHURI NAYAK (DEAD BY LR) & ORS.
          (Civil Appeal No. 6818 of 2010)
                    AUGUST 20, 2010
                                                             B
     [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

     Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 - Pension
under - Granted to first respondent - Cancelled by Central
Government on the basis that first respondent secured the C
same on the basis of false and fabricated documents -
Justification of - Held: Justified - Grant of freedom fighters'
pension to bogus claimants producing false and fabricated
documents is as bad as genuine freedom fighters being
denied pension - The Government should weed out false and D
fabricated claims and cancel the grant when the bogus nature
of the claim comes to light.

    The first respondent filed an application for grant of
freedom fighters' pension under the Freedom Fighters E
Pension Scheme, 1972 on the basis that in 1943 he had
been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) under
Rule 38(5) of the Defence of India Rules (DIR) and
sentenced to seven months simple imprisonment. As
proof of the imprisonment, the first respondent produced
a certified extract of the entries made in the challan F
register of 1943 in the office of SDO. The first respondent
was, accordingly, sanctioned freedom fighters pension
by the State Government and the Central Government.
                                                                 I
     Subsequently, a Public Interest Litigation was filed G
before the High Court alleging that the first respondent
had secured Freedom Fighters Pension by producing
false and fabricated documents and that an inspection of
the challan register of 1943 in the office of the SDO
                          615                             H
    616          SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   showed that the name of the first respondent had been
    fraudulently inserted among names of the accused who
    were convicted and sentenced in a criminal case. It was
    further contended that the first respondent had
    concealed his date of birth while applying for and
B   securing the pension.

         In view of the said allegations, the Central
    Government cancelled the grant of pension to the first
    respondent on the basis that he had secured it by
C   fabricating documents. The first respondent challenged
    the said cancellation by filing a writ petition, which was
    allowed by the High Court.

          Allowing the appeals, the Court

o       HELD:1. This Court in order to ensure that no
    genuine Freedom Fighter is denied pension under the
    Freedom Fighters Pension scheme, has, in various
    judgments, spelt out the principles, which are
    summarized as under:
E          (i)    The object of the scheme was to honour, and
                  where necessary, to mitigate the sufferings of
                  those who had struggled to achieve
                  independence for the country. Many freedom
                  fighters, even though they did not have
F                 sufficient income to maintain themselves,
                  would even be reluctant to receive the Pension
                  under the Scheme, as they would consider it
                  as putting a price on their patriotism. the spirit
                  of the Scheme being both to assist and
G                 honour the freedom fighters and acknowledge
                  the valuable sacrifices made by them, the
                  authorities should treat the applicants with
                  respect and courtesy. The scheme should not
                  be converted into some kind of routine
H                 scheme for payment of compensation.
 STATE OF ORISSA v. CHOUDHURI NAYAK (DEAD                617
               BY LR) & ORS.

     (ii)    The persons intended to be covered by the          A
             Scheme are those who sacrificed and suffered
             for achieving the independence of the country,
             without expecting any reward for their
             sacrifice and sufferings. Therefore they can
             not be expected to maintain and produce            B
             perfect records or documents about their
             participation in the freedom struggle.

     (iii)   Once the country has decided to honour
             freedom fighters by granting a pension, the        C
             approach of the authorities implementing the
             scheme should not be obstructionist or
             technical while examining the applications and
             documents produced, but be practical having
             regard to the fact that most of the applications
             are by old persons with no proper records.         D

     (iv)    The criterion for pension under the scheme is
             not age, but participation in freedom struggle.
             The freedom fighters pension can, therefore,
             in exceptional cases, be granted even to those     E
             who were minors at the time of struggle, if
             evidence clearly showed that they had
             participated in the freedom struggle and
             fulfilled the requirements of the scheme. [Para
             8) [625-C-H; 626-A-D]                              F

     Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India 1993 Supp. (3)
SCC 2; Gurdial Singh v. Union of India 2001 (8) SCC 8 and
State of M.P. v. Devkinandan Maheshwari 2003 (3) SCC 183
- relied on.
                                                                G
     2. False claimants walking away with the benefits
meant for genuine and deserving candidates has
become the bane of several welfare schemes. Any
complacency on the part of the Government in taking
action against bogus claims under any scheme would              H
    618      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A encourage bogus claims under all schemes, by
  undeserving candidates who are 'well connected and
  influential'. When false claims come to the notice of the
  Central Government, it is bound to take stern action.
  Grant of freedom fighters' pension to bogus claimants
B producing false and fabricated documents is as bad as
  genuine freedom fighters being denied pension. The only
  way to respect the sacrifices of freedom fighters is to
  ensure that only genuine freedom fighters get the
  pension. This means that the Government should weed
c out false and fabricated claims and cancel the grant when
  the bogus nature of the claim comes to light. [Paras 7, 9]
  [625-A-B; 626-F]

          Union of India v. Avtar Singh 2006 (6) SCC 493 - relied
    on.
0
         3.1. In the instant case, the first ground mentioned by
    the Central Government, which is not in serious dispute,
    is that the name of the first respondent ('Chaudhuri') in
    the Entries relating to the Challan Register of 1943 is a
E   subsequent addition in a different handwriting and
    different ink which indicated that first respondent did not
    really undergo imprisonment as claimed. The only
    explanation given by first respondent is that he did not
    make the said correction. When the background in which
F   the document was produced and how it contradicted the
    claim of first respondents is considered, the bogus nature
    of the claim becomes evident. Alongwith his application
    for pension submitted in 1978, the first respondent had
    produced only one document, that is, a typed copy of the
G   alleged certificate issued by the Superintendent, Balasore
    Jail dated 12.3.1974 which stated that he was convicted
    and sentenced to seven months' simple imprisonment by
    P.G. Mohanty, SDO, Bhadrak under Rule 38(5) of DIR and
    he was confined in Balasore Jail between 19.3.1943 to
H   10.10.1943. But the said certificate did not bear any
 STATE OF ORISSA v. CHOUDHURI NAYAK (DEAD                619
               BY LR) & ORS.
signature and was not corroborated by any other                 A
document. Therefore, the first respondent was required
to produce other material to support his claim. It is at that
stage the first respondent produced a certified copy of
an extract from the Challan Register (obtained by him on
31.12.1981). A detailed examination of the records of SDO       8
showed that the names of 'Choudhari' and 'Banabehari'
were inserted among the names of persons shown as
convicted in that case, in a different ink and in a different
handwriting. Further, the said entry showed that the
persons convicted were sentenced to one year RI under           C
section 147 IPC, two years RI under section 152 read with
s.149 of IPC and two years RI under Rule 38 of DIR. This
is at complete variance with first respondent's claim
(which he sought to support by the typed Jail Certificate
dated 12.3.197 4) that he had been given a sentence of
seven months simple imprisonment. Thus, the unsigned            D
typed copy of jail certificate and the particulars given by
the first respondent in his application are proved to be
false by the contents of the certified copy of the Challan
Register produced by him. Evidently, the first respondent
was not one of the persons convicted or sentenced or            E
imprisoned in that case. [Para 10] [627-B-H; 628-A-E]

     3.2. The second ground for cancellation is the false
claim of age. The application showed that his age was 22
years when he was sentenced and imprisoned. But his             F
school records showed that he was born on 23.9.1926
and was, therefore, 16 years old in 1943. The service
record of the first respondent, on the other ha.nd, showed
his date of birth as 13.9.1928 (which first respondent
accepted as the correct date of birth) which meant that         G
he was 14 years old in 1943 when he claims to have been
convicted and sentenced. The order of cancellation of
pension stated that if he was 14 years, he would have
been kept in Borstal/Juvenile home and not imprisoned
in jail and that showed that the claim of first respondent
    620      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A that he was imprisoned in a Jail was highly improbable.
  The first respondent made a deliberate false claim about
  his age to secure the pension. [Para 11] [628-F-H; 629-A-
    C]
         3.3. The undisputed facts leave no doubt that the
8   claim of the first respondent was based on false and
    fabricated documents. Therefore, the cancellation of the
    pension was justified and cannot be found fault with.
    [Para 12] [629-D-E]

C      3.4. The High Court ignored the reasons for the
  cancellation, merely because the State government did
  not discover the false claim when first respondent made
  the :application and the first respondent had produced
  before the High Court for the first time, some certificates
o from alleged co-prisoners. The High Court could not
  have ignored the production of false and fabricated
  documents which would automatically disentitle the
  applicant to any benefit under the scheme. The order of
  the High Court is set aside and the order of the Central
E Government cancelling the pension is affirmed. However,
  having regard to the fact that the first respondent has
  died in the year 2004, there shall be no recovery of any
  amount already paid to the deceased first respondent
  from his widow or other legal heirs. [Paras 13, 14] [629-
F H; 630-A-C]
                           Case Law Reference:
          1993 Supp. (3) sec 2 relied on            Para 8
          2001 (8) sec 8          relied on         Para 8
G
          2003 (3) sec 183        relied on         Para 8
          2006 (6) sec 493        relied on         Para 9

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
H 6818 of 2010.
 STATE OF ORISSA v. CHOUDHURI NAYAK (DEAD                621
               BY LR) & ORS.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 14.10.2003 of the High      A
Court of Orrisa, Cuttack, in O.J.C. No. 11859 of 2001.

                              With

    C.A. No. 6819 of 2010.

     Mohan Jain, ASG. Kirti Renu Mishra, D.K. Thakur, Deepak
Jain, '(ogitaYadav, S.N. Terdal, P. Parmeswaran, SushmaSuri,
K. Sarada Devi, Debasis Misra, for the appearing parties.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                 c
    R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. Chaudhuri Nayak, first respondent in these appeals (who
died during the pendency of the special leave petitions leaving
his widow as his legal representative) filed an application on D
18.9.1978 claiming pension under the Freedom Fighters
Pension Scheme, 1972 ('scheme' for short). In his application,
he claimed that he was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Bhadrak, under Rule 38(5) of the Defence of India Rules ('DIR'
for short) and sentenced to seven months' simple imprisonment. E
He further stated that in pursuance of such conviction and
sentence, he was taken into custody and suffered imprisonment
from 19.3.1943 to 10.10.1943 in Balasore jail. The said
application for freedom fighter's pension was accompanied by
a typed unsigned copy of a certificate dated 12.3.1974 said to · F
have been issued by the Superintendent, Balasore District Jail,
certifying that the first respondentwas convicted and sentenced
to seven months simple imprisonment by Sri. P.C.Mohanty,
Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhadrak under Rule 38(5) of DIR on
 10.3.1943 and he was confined in the said jail from 19.3.1943 G
till 10.10.1943. Therefore first respondent was asked to produce
some acceptable proof of imprisonment. In the year 1982, he
produced a certified copy of the Entries made on 12.10.1943
in the criminal case register (SI.No. 278 of ChaHan Register)

                                                                H
    622     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   being brief summary of the case decided by Sri. P.C. Mohanty,
    SDO in case No. G.327of 1942. The said certified copy was
    obtained by the first respondent from the Record Section of
    SDO's office on 30.12.1981. The said certified copy showed
    that Sri P.C. Mohanty, SDO, Bhadrak had made a final order
B   in case titled Emperor v. Safar and 32 Others, in regard to
    offences punishable under sections 147, 35 to 38 IPC and
    Rule 38(5) of DIR. The name 'Choudhari' also figured in the
    names of accused who were convicted and sentenced in that
    case.
c        3. The State Government accepted the said certified
    extract of Challan Register as proof of first respondent having
    undergone imprisonment for more than six months and
    processed his application and recommended his case for
    pension. The first respondent was sanctioned Freedom
D   Fighters Pension with effect from 1.8.1980 by the Central
    Government and with effect from 1.1.1984 by the State
    Government. The first respondent was being paid pension in
    terms of the scheme ever since then.

E        4. A public interest litigation (OJC No. 15977/1997) was
    filed by one S.Sanyasi Charan Das before the Orissa High
    Court alleging that the first respondent was drawing freedom
    fighter's pension by producing false and fabricated documents
    and that an inspection of the Challan Register in the office of
F   SDO, Bhadrak would show that the name of the first respondent
    had been fraudulently inserted among the names of accused
    who were convicted and sentenced in the criminal case (with
    respect to which the first respondent had produced the certified
    copy). It was also stated that the first respondent was hardly
G   fourteen years old in 1943 and he had concealed his date of
    birth (13.9.1928) while applyin.g for and securing the pension
    and had falsely shown his age as 56 years in his application
    dated 18.9.1978 (which would make him 21 years old in 1943).
    In view of these allegations, the State Government conducted
    an inquiry through the Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak. The
H
 STATE OF ORISSA v. CHOUDHURI NAYAK (DEAD                     623
     BY LR) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
said inquiry disclosed that in the Entries in the Challan Register    A
(at SI.No. 278), the name of first resp9ndent and another
("Choudhari" and "Banabehari") had been inserted among the
names of persons convicted and sentenced, shown under the
column "final order passed with details of sentence and date
of decision" and that such insertion was clearly visible even on      B
a casual inspection as the two names were in a different
handwriting and different ink and impression. The enquiries
also revealed that the date of birth of first respondent was
shown as 23.9.1926 in the school records and was recorded
as 13.9.1928 in his service record.                                   c
      5. The State Government therefore issued a show cause
notice dated 14.12.2000 to the first respondent asking him to
show cause why the grant of pension should not be cancelled
in view of pension being secured by fabricating documents.
On the basis of the information furnished by the State                D
Government, the Central Government also issued a similar
show cause notice dated 19.7.2001 to the first respondent.
The first respondent sent a reply denying knowledge of any
addition or alteration in the entries relating to Sl.No.278 in the
Challan Register. He however admitted that his date of birth          E
was 13.9.1928 as entered in the Service Record but did not
explain why he had shown a wrong age in the application for
pension. After considering the explanation given, the Central
Government, by order dated 14.8.2001 cancelled the freedom
fighters pension granted to first respondent. The first respondent    F
challenged the said cancellation by filing a writ petition (OJC
No. 11859/2001) before the Orissa High Court. The High Court
by the impugned order dated 14.10.2003 allowed the writ
petition on the ground that there was no justification for the
cancellation, as the State Government had recommended the             ,G
case of first respondent only after verification of the application
and records. The High Court also referred to some certificates
produced by the first respondent, alongwith the writ petition,
allegedly issued by his co-prisoners about his imprisonment.
The said order is challenged in these appeals by special leave        H
    624      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A by the State Government and the Central Government.

         6. The Government of India cancelled the pension, by a
    detailed reasoned order dated 14.8.2001 after issuing a show
    cause notice and after considering the explanation given by
8   the first respondent. It gave the following two reasons for the
    cancellation:

        (i) In the Challan Register, the name of the first
  respondent (Chaudhuri) had been fraudulently inserted among
  the names of accused who were convicted and sentenced in
C a criminal case, in a different handwriting and in a different
  ink. This showed that first respondent was not really an accused
  in that case, nor was he convicted or sentenced or undergone
  any imprisonment.

o      (ii) The school records showed his date of birth as
  23.9.1926. His service record showed his date of birth as
  13.9.1928 (which was accepted to be the correct date of birth).
  If so, his age at the time of alleged conviction was only 14
  years. But in his application for pension given on 18:9.1978
E he had clearly shown his age as 56 years, that is, 21 years in
  1943.

    The question for consideration is whether in the circumstances
    the central government was justified in cancelling the pension;
    and whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the
F   said order.

       7. It is of some interest to note from the statistics furnished
  by the Central government in their additional affidavit, that
  1,70,813 freedom fighters/dependants have been sanctioned
G freedom fighters pension (as on 31.5.2010). At present as
  many as 60000 persons are getting pension or family pension
  as freedom fighters/dependants. The average pension of a
  freedom fighter and after his/her death to the spouse is
  Rs.12400/- p.m. and the average pension paid to a dependant
H unmarried daughter is Rs.3000 per month. The expenditure
 STATE OF ORISSA v. CHOUDHURI NAYAK (DEAD 625
     BY LR) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
for the year 2009-10 under the scheme was Rs. 785 crores.            A
We have referred to these figures only to show that when false
claims come to the notice of the Central Government, it is
bound to take stern action. Any complacency on the part of the
Government in taking action against bogus claims under any
scheme would encourage bogus claims under all schemes, by            8
undeserving candidates who are 'well connected and
influential'. False claimants walking away with the benefits
meant for genuine and deserving candidates has become the
bane of several welfare schemes.

    8. This Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India           c
[1993 Supp. (3) SCC 2], Gurdial Singh v: Union of India
[2001 (8) SCC 8] and State of M.P. v. Devkinandan
Maheshwari [2003 (3)    sec
                          183] considered the object of the
Freedom Fighters Pension scheme and indicated what should
be the approach of the authorities in dealing with the               [)
applications for pension under the scheme. We may
summarize them as under:

    (i) The object of the scheme was to honour, and where
    necessary, to mitigate the sufferings of those who had           E
    struggled to achieve independence for the country. Many
    freedom fighters, even though they did not have sufficient
    income to maintain themse1ves, would even be reluctant
    to receive the Pension under the Scheme, as they would
    consider it as putting a price on their patriotism. The spirit   F
    of the Scheme being both to assist and honour the
    freedom fighters and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices
    made by them, the authorities should treat the applicants
    with respect and courtesy. The scheme should not be
    converted into some kind of routine scheme for payment           G
    of compensation.

    (ii) The persons intended to be covered by the Scheme
    are those who sacrificed and suffered for achieving the
    independence of the country, without expecting any reward
    for their sacrifice and sufferings. Therefore they can not be    H
    626       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A         expected to maintain and produce perfect records or
          documents about their participation in the freedom
          struggle.

          (iii) Once the country has decided to honour freedom
B         fighters by granting a pension, the approach of the
          authorities implementing the scheme should not be
          obstructionist or technical while examining the applications
          and documents produced, but be practical having regard
          to the fact that most of the applications are by old persons
          with no proper records.
c
          (iv) The criterion for pension under the scheme is not age,
          but participation in freedom struggle. The freedom fighters
          pension can, therefore, in exceptional cases, be granted
          even to those who were minors at the time of struggle, if
D         evidence clearly showed that they had participated in the
          freedom struggle and fulfilled the requirements of the
          scheme.

    The above principles were spelt out to ensure that no genuine
E   freedom fighter was denied pension under the scheme.

          9. Grant of freedom fighters' pension to bogus claimants
    producing false and fabricated documents is as bad as genuine
    freedom fighters being denied pension. The only way to respect
    the sacrifices of freedom fighters is to ensure that only genuine
F   freedom fighters get the pension. This means that the
    Government should weed out false and fabricated claims and
    cancel the grant when the bogus,nature of the claim comes to
    light. In Union of India v. Avtar Singh [2006 (6) SCC 493] this
    Court therefore cautioned:
G
          "The genuine freedom fighters derserve to be treated with
          reverence, respect and honour. But at the same time it
          cannot be lost sight of that people who had no role to play
          in the freedom struggle should not be permitted to benefit
          from the liberal approach required to be adopted in the
H
 STATE OF ORISSA v. CHOUDHURI NAYAK (DEAD                     627
     BY LR) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.)
     case of the freedom fighters, most of whom in the normal         A
     course are septuagenarians and octogenarians."

We will have to examine allegations of fabrication of the claim
in this case, keeping the aforesaid principles in view.

       10. The first ground mentioned by the Central Government       B
 is that the name 'Choudhuri' in the Entries relating to SI.No.
 278 of the Challan Register of 1943 is a subsequent addition
 in a different handwriting and different ink which indicated that
 first respondent did not really undergo imprisonment as
 claimed. The fact that the name Choudhuri is in a different ink      C
 and different handwriting is not in serious dispute. The only
 explanation given by first respondent is that he did not make
the said correction. When the background in which the document
was produced and how it contradicted the claim of first
respondents is considered, the bogus nature of the claim              D
becomes evident. Alongwith his application for pension
submitted in 1978, the first respondent had produced only one
 document, that is, a typed copy of the alleged certificate issued
 by the Superintendent, Balasore Jail dated 12.3.1974 which
 stated that he was convicted and sentenced to seven months'          E
 simple imprisonment by P.G. Mohanty, SDO, Bhadrak under
 Rule 38(5) of DIR and he was confined in Balasore Jail between
 19.3.1943 to 10.10.1943. This, o, ..:ourse supported the claim
 of the first respondent in his application about his conviction
 and period of imprisonment. But the said certificate did not         F
 bear any signature and was not corroborated by any other
 document. Therefore first respondent was required to produce
 other material to support his claim. It is at that stage the first
 respondent produced a certified copy of an extract from the
Challan Register (obtained by him on 31.12.1981). This
                                                                      G
certified copy of the sheet relating at SI.No. 278 of Challan
Register for 1943 issued by the District Record Room showed
that one Salar and 32 others were convicted by P.C. Mohanty,
SOM, Bhadrak in case under 'Section 147 and 35 to 38 IPC
and 38(5) of DIR'. The names of accused enumerated therein
                                                                      H
    628      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A   included 'Choudhari'. But a detailed examination of the records
    of SOM, Bhadrak showed that the names 'Choudhari' and
    'Banabehari'. were inserted among the names of persons
  . shown as convicted in that case, in a different ink and in a
    different handwriting. Further the said entry showed that the
B persons convicted were sentenced to one year RI under
    section 147 IPC, two years RI under section 152 read with
    149 of IPC and two years RI under Rule 38 of DIR. This is at
    complete variance with first respondent's claim (which he
    sought to support by the typed Jail Certificate dated 12.3.1974)
c that he had been given a sentence of seven months simple
    imprisonment. Thus the unsigned typed copy of jail certificate
    and the particulars given by the first respondent in his
    application are proved to be false by the contents of the
    certified copy of the Challan Register produced by him which
0 showed that the persons convicted were sentenced to one
    year, two years and two years of rigorous imprisonment to run
    concurrently and not seven months simple imprisonment
    claimed by first respondent. Evidently, the first respondent was
    not one of the persons convicted or sentenced or imprisoned
    in that case.
E
       . 11. The second ground for cancellation is the false claim
    ofage. The application showed that his age was 22 years
  when he was sentenced and imprisoned. But his school
  records showed that he was born on 23.9.1926 and was
F therefore 16 years old in 1943. The service record of the first
  respondent on the other hand showed his date of birth is
  13.9.1928 (which first respondent accepted as the correct date
  of birth) which meant that he was 14 years old in 1943 when
  he claims to have been convicted and sentenced. The order
G of cancellation of pension stated that if he was 14 years, he
  would have been kept in Borstal/Juvenile home and not
  imprisoned in jail and that showed that the claim of first
  respondent that he was imprisoned in a Jail was highly
  improbable. The learned counsel for first respondent attempted
H to contend that several youngsters aged around 14 years or
 STATE OF ORISSA v. CHOUDHURI NAYAK (DEAD                     629
     BY LR) & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
even less, had participated in the freedo~ struggle and if British    A
Rulers had wrongly sent them to jail instead of treating them
as juveniles, the youngster could not be blamed. But the issue
is not whether a youngster aged 14 years could be a freedom
fighter or could be sent to jail. The issue is that the first
respondent had given the application for pension showing his          B
age as 56 years which mar;le him 21 years old when he
allegedly underwent imprisonment in 1943 whereas
subsequently he admitted that he was born on 13.9.1928 which
means that he was hardly 14 years in 1943. This shows that
the first respondent made a deliberate false claim about his          c
age to secure the pension. Obviously he thought that if he
disclosed his true age, there would be objections or a detailed
examination and he might not get the pension.

      12. The undisputed facts leave no doubt that the claim of
the first respondent was based on false and fabricated                D
documents. He was a teacher/Headmaster of a school when
he made the claim and clearly knew that he was making a
false claim. Therefore the cancellation of the pension was
justified and cannot be found fault with. The scheme was
introduced with the noble intention of honouring those who            E
fought for the freedom of the country. As noticed by this Court
ih Mukund Lal Bhandari, many freedom fighters even refused
to receive such pension as they felt that it would amount to
putting a premium on their patriotism. There are also several
unscrupulous persons who made false claims and received               F
the benefits. The Government shall not allow such false
claimants to mock at the genuine freedom fighters. What is
rather disturbing is the fact that many false claimants have
taken advantage of the observations of this Court that the
authorities processing the applications should not be very rigid      G
or technical in scrutinizing the applications for freedom fighter's
pension.

     13. The High Court ignored the relevant principles. It
ignored the reasons for the cancellation, merely because the
                                                                      H
    630     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 10 S.C.R.

A state government did not discover the false claim when first
  respondent made the application and the first respondent had
  produced before the High Court for the first time, some
  certificates from alleged co-prisoners. The High Court could
  not have ignored the production of false and fabricated
B documents which would automatically disentitle the applicant
  to any benefit under the scheme.

       14. In view of the above we allow these appeals, set
  aside the order of the High Court and affirm the order of the
  Central Government cancelling the pension. Having regard to
C the fact that the first respondent has died in the year 2004, it
  is made clear that there shall be no recovery of any amount
  already paid to the deceased first respondent from his widow
  or other legal heirs.

    B.B.B                                       Appeals allowed.