wp4031.07 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4031 OF 2007 Bhagwan s/o Abarao Deshpande, R/o-2, Durvankar Apartment, 22, Nandigram Colony, Garkheda, Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Union of India, Through its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi, 2) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Freedom Fighters Cell, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3) The Collector, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. S.S. Choudhari Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1. Shri. Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri. B.V. Wagh, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3. ... wp4031.07 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 5TH JANUARY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner claims freedom fighter's pension on account of his participation in Hyderabad Liberation Movement. In the year 1999, he filed application claiming freedom fighter's pension. By communication dated 4th March, 2007 the State Government informed the Collector, Aurangabad that for the reasons stated in the communication, the application filed by the Petitioner was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said communication, the Petitioner approached this Court in the year 2007. 3. Shri. Choudhari, learned counsel wp4031.07 3 appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had submitted two affidavits of the persons who had participated in the freedom struggle, out of which one has suffered two years imprisonment. The Petitioner has substantially complied with the requirement under the scheme. The Petitioner is 80 years old. Considering the record furnished by the Petitioner, the Petitioner be granted freedom fighter's pension. 4. Shri. Alok Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submitted that to establish that the Petitioner was underground freedom fighter, there is absolutely no evidence on record. There is no evidence to show that he absconded. Even the State Government did not grant pension to the Petitioner. 5. Shri. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 submitted that the Petitioner does not satisfy the basic substantial wp4031.07 4 requirements under the scheme, for grant of pension. Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Aurangabad has not recommended the case of the Petitioner. Out of the two affiants, one had undergone two years imprisonment. The State Government had refused to grant pension to the Petitioner and even the Central Government also refused to grant freedom fighter's pension to the Petitioner. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the record. We find that the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner are not convincing. The Petitioner does not fulfill substantial basic requirements for grant of pension. We do not find any glaring error in the view adopted by the Respondent Authorities. It has been contended on behalf of the Respondent No.1 that the Pension Scheme was launched by the Central Government in the year 1972 and the Petitioner had applied for grant of pension in the year 1999, after a gap of about 27 years since the wp4031.07 5 scheme was put in operation. 7. Considering the material facts of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JAN11/wp4031.07