(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1736 OF 1998 Laxmansingh s/o. Gopalsingh Thakur, Age : 75 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Gaikwad Lane, At & Post : Kandhar, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra [Through the Govt. Pleader, High Court Building at Aurangabad]. 2. The Under Secretary to the Government of India, FF Hyd. Cell, Ministry of Home Affairs, Loknayak Bhavan, New Delhi. 3. The Collector, Collectorate, Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. (2) Mrs. R.K. Ladda, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent no.2. ........................ 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 that he is entitled to the pension, on account of he being a freedom fighter, under the Central Government Scheme. 2. Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner was in jail from 4-12-1956 Fasli to 30-2-1957 Fasli, he is entitled to the freedom fighter's pension under the Central Government Scheme. He further submits that when the petitioner is being granted pension under the State Government Scheme, there is no reason why he should be deprived of the pension under the Central Government Scheme. It is further submitted that since the petitioner belongs to Vimukta Jati, which is a backward (3) class, he is also entitled of special concession granted to the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. 3. By now, it is a settled law, that for being entitled to the freedom fighter's pension, either under the State Government Scheme or the Central Government Scheme, the claimant has to satisfy the conditions as are envisaged under the Schemes. In so far as pension under the Central Government Scheme is concerned, if the claim is on the basis of imprisonment, it has to be established that the person has suffered imprisonment for a period of six months. In the present case, it is clearly less than three months. 4. In so far as to the next contention, that the benefit which is available to the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, should also be given to the persons belonging to Vimukta Jati, is concerned, the said contention is without any merit. The Apex Court, in the case of Indra Sawhney and others Vs. Union of India and others (1992 Supp(3) Supreme Court Cases 217), has held that the reservations in favour of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes are constitutional reservations, whereas the other reservations are permissible reservations, which the State may give to the backward class of citizens by invoking powers under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. As such, the contention, in (4) this regard, is without any merit. 5. Even otherwise, the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria of three months imprisonment, which is necessary for a person claiming freedom fighter's pension under the Central Government Scheme, on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 6. In the result, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1736