(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 184 OF 2008 Hiraji s/o. Pandharinath Sanap, Age : 80 years, Occupation : Nil, resident of Warzadi, Taluka : Patoda, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (Freedom Fighters Division), 1st Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi - 111 003. 2. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, General Administration Department, Freedom Fighters Cell, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 3. The Collector, Beed, District : Beed. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent no.1. (2) Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Mr. S.K. Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.3. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for a direction to the respondent no.1, to sanction pension to the petitioner, under Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980. 2. It is not in dispute, that the petitioner has been held to be eligible for grant of pension under the scheme framed by the respondent no.2, the State of Maharashtra. 3. For being eligible for pension, under the scheme framed by the respondent no.1, it is necessary that the proposal along with the application of the applicant has to be forwarded by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1. Only upon receipt of such a proposal and application, the respondent no.1 can consider the case for grant of pension. (3) 4. It appears that there was a dispute, as to whether the application made by the petitioner has been received by the respondent no.1, or not. In that view of the matter, we had requested the learned Assistant Solicitor General to take instructions in this regard. 5. Mr. Alok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent no.1, on instructions of the concerned Department, makes a statement, that a proposal, in fact, has been received from respondent no.2 regarding grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. It is, however, submitted that the application made by the petitioner has not been received by the respondent no.1. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel, that the following order would subserve the ends of justice. 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The petitioner shall hand over a copy of the application made by him, for grant of pension under the Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980, to the learned Assistant Solicitor General, within a period of one week from today. On receipt of said copy of application, it will be deemed that the application of the petitioner is duly received by the respondent no.1 from respondent no.2. (ii) The learned Assistant Solicitor General is requested to forward copy of the application, made by the petitioner, to the respondent no.1. (iii) The respondent no.1, on receipt of the copy of the application, (4) shall consider the proposal recommended by the State Government, for grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the receipt thereof by the learned Assistant Solicitor General. The respondent no.1 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no orders as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp184