{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1219 OF 1994 Smt.Sundrabai Wd/o Ganpatrao Narayanrao Alias Sakharam Nimbalkar R/o Tilak Chowk, Nilanga, Dist-Latur PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Union of India, Through Secretary, Home Department,Union of India New Delhi 2. The Collector, Latur 3. The Home Secretary, Government of India, Freedom Fighters Cell, New Delhi RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.M.N.Navandar h/f Mr.K.G.Nawandar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.R.P.Phatake, standing counsel for Union of India ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 31st July 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for directing respondents to grant freedom fighters’ honorary pension of Central Government to the petitioner, being a widow of a freedom fighter Shri.Ganpatrao Narayanrao alias Sakharam Nimbalkar along with other benefits thereon with effect from 4th August 1973. The petitioner has also {2} prayed for ad interim reliefs of directing the respondents to deposit the amount of the pension along with other benefits with effect from 4th August 1973. 2. It appears that the petitioner claims to be widow of one Ganpatrao Narayanrao alias Sakharam Nimbalkar, who had participated in the freedom movement against erstwhile Nijam of Hyderabad. According to the petitioner, her husband was active worker of Arya Samaj and he was prosecuted in the Court of Munsiff Magistrate, Gulbarga in Criminal Case No.62/2 of 1348 Fasali u/s 24 of the Defense of Hyderabad Act along with 30 other persons. The petitioner, therefore, alleges that since her husband had participated in the freedom movement, the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits. The petitioner has annexed a document styled as “Exhibit-I” dated 6th June 1974. On perusal of the aforesaid document it transpired that an application had been submitted by the husband of the petitioner seeking freedom fighter’s pension from the Central Government, which came to be turned down by the respondents on the ground that imprisonment was less than 6 months and, therefore, husband of the petitioner was not entitled to claim the pension. This order, by which the Central Government had declined to treat the husband of the petitioner as a freedom fighter and to award him various benefits, is not the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 3. Be that as it may. An affidavit has been filed by the {3} respondents. It is pointed out that the husband of the petitioner had written his name as “Ganpatirao s/o Narayanrao Nimbalkar” while in the jail certificate produced by the petitioner along with the petition the name has been written as “Ganpat Sakharam Nimbalkar”. In the affidavit in reply it is stated that no nexus, whatsoever, has been established between the husband of the petitioner and the person who is said to have been convicted and sentenced. It also appears that the petitioner had thereafter, submitted an application on 06.01.1994 claiming pension from the Central Government on account of the fact that she is widow of a freedom fighter, however, as pointed out by us above, claim of the husband of the petitioner had been turned down by the Central Government on the ground that he was not a freedom fighter. In the light of that, the pendency of this application would not make any difference. 4. Unless and until the petitioner establishes that her husband was a freedom fighter, who is entitled to the pensionary benefits, the petitioner cannot independently claim any benefits of the freedom fighters’ pension. In the light of that, therefore, we do not see any merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, dismissed . Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp1219-94