- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NOS.4495/2000 & 5059/2000 WRIT PETITION NO.4495/2000 Sou.Madhubala Madanmohan Shah, age 66 yrs., occu.household, r/o “Shrinath”, 45, Bhagya Nagar, Aurangabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra. 2] The Collector, Aurangabad. Dist.Aurangabad. ...Respondents... ..... Shri C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.D. Rakh, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri B.B. Kulkarni, Advocate appearing for District level Gaurav Samiti. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - 2 - WRIT PETITION NO.5059/2000 Smt.Kusum Maganlal Desai, age 62 yrs., occu.household, r/o 138, Jyoti Nagar, Aurangabad. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra. 2] The Collector, Aurangabad. Dist.Aurangabad. ...Respondents... ..... Shri C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.B. Choudhary, Additional G.P. for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri B.B. Kulkarni, Advocate appearing for District level Gaurav Samiti. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 02.08.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Gavai, J.): 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] By way of present petitions, the petitioners are claiming the benefit under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme framed by the State Government. - 3 - 3] The petitioners claim to have participated in 1947 Hyderabad Liberation Movement and as such claim to be entitled to the said pension. 4] Shri C.R. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the petitioners had produced certificates of two freedom fighters, who had undergone an imprisonment certifying petitioners’ participation in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement. Shri Deshpande further submits that the petitioners have also annexed affidavit of Shri Kashinath G. Navandar, who is an eminent freedom fighter. 5] Shri B.B. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of District level Gaurav Samiti, submits that since the persons who have filed affidavits have not undergone imprisonment for a period of two years, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit under the scheme. 6] The Apex Court in the case of Union of India V/s Avtar Singh (2006) 6 SCC, 493 has held that for enabling a person to get the pension under the Freedom Fighters Scheme, it is necessary he stands the scrutiny of the conditions stipulated under the scheme. 7] The scheme framed by the State Government requires that the petitioners should submit affidavit of two persons who should have undergone imprisonment for two years or who were declared as absconding or were absconding for a period - 4 - of two years. Not only this, but the documentary proof in support like the jail certificate or proclamation is also required to be produced. 8] Admittedly, this was not done in the present case. As such the conditions stipulated under the scheme have not been complied with. 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/c281011