1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2884 of 1994 Ramrao S/o. Vishwanath @ Dhondiba Shinde, Aged 77 years, Occupation : Agriculture R/o. Ambulga (Bk) Tq. Nilanga, District Latur. Petitioner Versus 1] The Union of Inidia through its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2] The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Bombay 3] Collector, Latur District Latur. Respondents Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Mr. N.S. Choudhary, Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA,JJ. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] : 2 1] The petitioner has filed the present petition for direction against the respondent No.1 to grant pension to the petitioner, as per the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. 2] According to the petitioner, the petitioner has taken part in the Hyderabad Liberation movement and as such, he is entitled to freedom fighters pension. According to the petitioner, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months. However, on account of the amnesty scheme promulgated by the erstwhile Nizam Government, on the birthday of Nizam, he was released prior to completion of his sentence. 3] Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not completed the sentence of more than six months as required under the scheme framed by the Central Government and as such, he is not entitled to the freedom fighters pension. He relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of “Surja and others Vs. Union of India” reported in (1991)4 SCC 366 in support of his contention. He further relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of “Union of India Vs. Manoharlal” reported in (2002) 10 SCC 568 4] From the record, it can be seen that though the petitioner was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of 2 years and 6 months and though he was put in jail on 31st June, 1939, he was released on 10th August, 1939, on Government orders. A specific averment has been made by the petitioner to the effect that he was released on account of amnesty scheme on the occasion of 3 birthday of the Nizam. 5] The Apex Court in the case of “Surja and others Vs. Union of India and another” cited supra, has observed thus :- “7. Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme of 1972 was renamed as “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980”. The brochure punished by the Union of India indicates :” A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment for six months in the mainland jails before independence in the struggle for independence is eligible to be admitted to the benefits of the pension”. It has already been indicated that each of the petitioners had been convicted and was ordered to suffer imprisonment of more than six mnths. The petitioner's assertion that they did not claim remission has not been doubted or disputed. IN the facts of the case it would be appropriate to hold that each of the petitioners satisfied the condition for earning the benefit of pension and the fact that while undergoing sentence which was for a period beyond six months remission had been granted and they were let off earlier would not take away their right to earn pension. Learned Attorney General appearing for the respondents has accepted this construction of the entitlement clause.” 4 6] The facts of the present case are identical with the case of Surja (cited supra). In the present case also, a specific averment has been made that while the petitioner was undergoing sentence, without he praying for remission, a general amnesty was decleared by the Nizam on his Birthday, the sentence was reduced and the petitioner was set at liberty. As such, the present case would be squarely covered by the judgment cited supra. In so far as the reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of “Union of India Vs. Manoharlal” referred to (2002) 10 SCC 568, is concerned, in our view, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts in the present case. As a matter of fact, the Apex court in “Union of India Vs. Manoharlal” has considered its earlier judgment in the case of “Surja” and held that the ase of “Surja” would not be applicable in the facts of the case before it. In the case of “Surja”, the petitioners were released on account of general amensty without they claiming any remission. The facts of the present case are identical with the case of “Surja” and not that of “Manoharlal” . 7] The petition is, therefore, allowed and the respondents are directed to award pension to the petitioner, under the Scheme Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The petitioner shall be paid pension w.e.f. 26/10/1972, i.e. the date on which he had applied. The arrears would be paid to the petitioners within a period of six months from today. Certified copy expedited. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp