1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7445 OF 2005 Sundarabai w/o. Baburao Deshmukh (Patange) Wadgaonkar,Age 80 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Killewadgaon, Tq. Kalamnuri, District Hingoli through her legal heir – 1A Balasaheb Bapurao Deshmukh (Patange) Wadgaonkar, R/o. Killewadgaon, Tq. Kalamnuri District Hingoli. .. petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (Through the Secretary General, Administration Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai copy to be served on G.P. Of High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. 2. Secretary, Hi-Power Committee, Freedom Fighters Cell, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 3. Desk Officer, General Administration Department Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 4. The Collector – Parbhani Collectorate, Parbhani. 5. The Collector Hingoli Collector Office, Hingoli. 2 .. Respondent. --- Ms. P. Bharad, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Additional Govt. Pleader for the respondent NO.1,3,4 and 5 Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 24th September, 2009. PER COURT:-[per B.R. Gavai, J.] 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 2nd August, 2005, vide which the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme came to be rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner had taken part in the Hyderabad Liberation movement and as such, on his demise, she was entitled to the pension as provided under the Freedom Fighters' Pension scheme. 3] The claim of the petitioner is basically on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted documents as are required to be submitted in accordance with the Govt. Resolution dated 4th July, 1995. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time she did not 3 possess the requisite documents. However, she has annexed various documents alongwith the petition in support of her claim. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's case has been recommended by the District Level Committee. In that view of the matter, we find that it will be in the interest of justice that the respondents consider the claim of the petitioner afresh, in the light of the additional material that the petitioner has in her possession, to substantiate her claim. 4] Rule is, therefore, made absolute by quashing and setting aside the order dated 2nd August, 2005. The petitioner shall submit the document in support of her claim to the respondent No.5 within 3 weeks from today. On receipt of the said documents, the respondent No.5 shall forward the same to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, within a period of 3 weeks thereafter. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3, upon receipt of the documents, shall decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law, after giving due weightage to the additional material submitted by the petitioner, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the documents from the respondent No.5. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-