- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NOS.2044/1999 & 3912/1999 Ankush Nivruti Jadhav, age 70 yrs., occu.agril., r/o Chilwadi Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, General Administration Department, Freedom Fighter’s Cell, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2] The District Collector, Osmanabad. ...Respondents... ..... Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.B. Choudhary, Additional G.P. for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri B.B. Kulkarni, Advocate for District level Gaurav Samiti for Freedom Fighters. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - 2 - WRIT PETITION NO.3912/1999 Trivenabai w/o Chandar Kochare, age 60 yrs., occu.household, r/o Chilwadi Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, General Administration Department, Freedom Fighters Cell, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The District Collector, Osmanabad. ...Respondents... ..... Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.B. Choudhary, Additional G.P. for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri B.B. Kulkarni, Advocate for District level Gaurav Samiti for Freedom Fighters. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 05.08.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Gavai, J.): 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioners claim freedom fighter’s pension under the scheme framed by - 3 - the State of Maharashtra claiming that they had participated in Hyderabad Liberation Movement. 3] Shri U.B. Bondar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that though the petitioners had submitted the requisite documents in support of their claims of taking part in Hyderabad Liberation Movement, the impugned orders have been wrongly passed. He submits that since the documents were already submitted prior to 4.7.1995, the cases of the petitioners would be governed by the earlier scheme and not under the scheme framed by the Government resolution dated 4.7.1995. 4] Only such cases, wherein District level Gaurav committee has recommended the names and the matter is pending adjudication before the State Government, are to be considered in accordance with the old scheme. All other applications have to be scrutinized in terms of the guidelines issued as per the Government resolution dated 4.7.1995. From the impugned orders, it is clear that the petitioners have not furnished affidavits of two freedom fighters, who have suffered imprisonment for a period of two years or were required to go underground for a period more than two years. The petitioners are also not in a position to produce any other material to show that they were required to go underground. The impugned orders further reveal that District level Gaurav committee has not recommended the cases of the petitioners. - 4 - 5] In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The writ petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c58104