(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3241 OF 1994 Baburao s/o. Ambadasrao Tekale, Age : 77 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Washi, Taluka : Bhoom, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Union of India. 2. Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter Section (Hyderabad Cell). 3. Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 4. The State of Maharashtra. 5. Collector, Osmanabad, Taluka & District : Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. R.D. Mane, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.4 and 5. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 20TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner claims pension, on the ground that he is a freedom fighter and entitled to the said pension, as per the scheme framed by the Central Government. 2. Mr. R.D. Mane, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that when the petitioner is being paid pension under the Scheme framed by the State Government, there is no reason, as to why the petitioner should not be given same benefit (3) under the Central Government Scheme. 3. Mr. Alok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, submits that the petitioner, though convicted, was released in a short span and, as such, does not fulfill the conditions under the Central Government Scheme 4. Perusal of the affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent no.1, would reveal that though the petitioner was convicted on 17-6-1348 Fasli, to undergo 1 year 6 months rigorous imprisonment, but he was released on 24-6-1348 Fasli, on tendering apology. In that view of the matter, the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite criteria for grant of freedom fighter's pension under the Central Government Scheme, and the petition is without any merit. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, granted by this Court, vide order dated 8th November 1994, is vacated. However, it is made clear, that the respondents shall not recover the amount that was paid to the petitioner, in pursuance to the interim relief granted by this Court. (4) In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/3241wp