1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3742 of 1994 Smt. Padmabai w/o. Gangadharrao Kodarkar Age 62 years, Occ. Household r/o. “Renuka” Chatrapati Nagar, Garkheda, Aurangabad. Petitioner Versus 1] Union of India through Deputy Secretary The Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter's Division, 1st Floor, Lokanayak Bhavan, NEW DELHI 110 003. 2] The Collector Collector Office, Beed. 3] The Government of Maharashtra through Secretary General Administration Department, M.S. Mantralaya, Bombay-32. Respondents Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for Union of India. Mr. K.G. Patil , AGP for respondent Nos. 2. Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent No.3 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA,JJ. DATE : 14TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI,J.] :- 2 1] The petitioner has filed the present petition claiming pension under the scheme framed by the Central Government for Freedom Fighters, on the ground that the petitioner's husband was required to be underground in the freedom movement. 2] Shri Golegaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though various affidavits have been filed by the petitioner on record to establish that the husband of the present petitioner had participated in the freedom movement, and was required to be underground for a considerable period, the claim of the petitioner has been erroneously rejected. 3] Shri Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General and Shri Bhushan Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 vehemently opposed the petition. 4] Shri Sharma relied on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the matter of “Union of India Vs. Avtar Singh” reported in 2006 AIR SCW 3803, in which, the Apex Court has held that unless the freedom fighter establishes his entitlement in accordance with the requirements of the scheme concerned, the freedom fighter would not be entitled to pension as per the scheme of the Central Government. 5] The petitioner claims her entitlement on the ground that her husband was an underground freedom fighter. Clause 2.3 of the concerned Scheme reads thus :- “2.3 Underground :- A person who, on 3 account of his participation in freedom struggle remained underground for more than six months provided he was :- A. a proclaimed offender; or B. one on whom an award for arrest was announced ; or C. one for whose detention order was issued but not served. Voluntary underground suffering or self exile suffering for party work under command of the party leaders, are not covered as eligible sufferings for pension under the Central Scheme. ..... ..... ..... “. 6] It is thus clear that any freedom fighter, who had gone underground would not be entitled to the benefit of the said scheme. Only such freedom fighters, who remained underground and who were either a proclaimed offender or on whom an award for arrest was announced or whose detention order was issued but not served, would be entitled for pension under the scheme. Explanation to the said clause specifically states that Voluntary underground suffering or self exile suffering for party work under command of the party leaders, are not covered as eligible sufferings for pension under the Central Scheme. 7] Nothing has been placed on record to establish that the husband of the petitioner was either a proclaimed offender or a person on whom an award for arrest was announced ; or for whose detention order was issued but not served. It is thus clear that the 4 petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence so as to claim entitlement under the scheme. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp