1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3431 OF 1999 Bapu Ganpat Pawar .... PETITIONER VERSUS Govt. of India & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. D.R.Bhadekar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3432 OF 1999 Smt. Godabai Narayan Singh Rajput .... PETITIONER VERSUS Govt. of India & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. D.R.Bhadekar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3443 OF 1999 Changdeo Maroti Kakade .... PETITIONER VERSUS Govt. of India & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. D.R.Bhadekar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3447 OF 1999 2 Smt. Godawaribai Nagnath Jangam .... PETITIONER VERSUS Govt. of India & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.K.Tiwari, Advocate holding for Mr. S.J.Gaike, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3451 OF 1999 Smt. Kamalbai W/o Rangnath Jadhav .... PETITIONER VERSUS Govt. of India & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.K.Tiwari, Advocate holding for Mr. S.J.Gaike, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 22/07/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners, who claim to be Freedom Fighters or their widows are claiming the pension under the scheme framed by the Central Govt. namely Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension scheme. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that out of 121 persons recommended by one Mr. Vijayendra Kabara, certifying that they had 3 participated in the Freedom struggle and that they had suffered being underground for the period of more than six months. Pension was granted to 114 persons, but denied only in case of the 7 persons including that of the petitioners. In an affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Union of India, it was specifically stated that the scheme enables the claimant to get pension on account of being Freedom Fighter only if it is found that he was required to remain underground or if he was a proclaimed offender or detention order was issued but not served or prize was proclaimed for arrest of such a person. However, in view of the categorical stand taken by the petitioners regarding discrimination, we had requested the learned Assistant Solicitor General to throw light on this position. 3. Mr. Alok Sharma, the learned Assistant Solicitor General has placed on record a communication dated 15/7/2010 addressed by the Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division. From the said communication, it is apparent that the Central Govt. had constituted a Special Committee in 1983 under the Chairmanship of Mr. Govindbhai Shroff to scrutinize the applications of the persons who have taken part in Hyderabad Liberation Movement. The perusal of the said letter would reveal that the underground Camps were in various parts of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. It can further be revealed from the said communication that though 11,000 4 participants had claimed the benefit of the pension, the Committee recommended the names of only 7000 persons. A copy of the said communication is taken on record and marked as ‘ X ’ for identification. It thus clearly appears that though the Scheme stipulates certain conditions, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Union had appointed the Committee under the Chairmanship of Govindbhai Shroff, who undoubetedly was an eminent Freedom Fighter. Not only that, but the Committee also consisted 3 eminent Freedom Fighters, who are from Andhra Pradesh and Karnaka, namely Mr. J.R. Chandirki, Mr. P.Tirumal Rao and Mr. K.V. Narsing Rao. It is only on the basis of the recommendations of this Committee, the Freedom Fighters have been granted pension. It can thus clearly be seen that the Union of India has acted on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee consisting of eminent Freedom Fighters and not on account of the decision of its own. 4. In that view of the matter, no merit can be found in the contentions of the petitioners that the Union of India has acted in discriminatory manner. 5. Apart from the fact as stated above and in accordance with the Scheme, the petitioners are not entitled to get pension. By now, it is a settled law that for enabling a person to get Freedom Fighter pension, he 5 has to qualify the conditions stipulated under the scheme. 6. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Govt. has also decided to reconsider the case of the persons claiming participation in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement. In the event the Govt. has taken decision to reconsider the case, the petitioners would be at liberty to apply to the Union of India and the Union of India would consider the same without being prejudiced by the dismissal of the petitions. 7. The petition being devoid of merit, it is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 3431.........99