1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2237/2009 Vandana Prashant Deshmukh , Age-29 years, D/o Namdeo K.Gaikwad, C/o Bhupesh Gupta Bhuvan, Sayani Road,Prabhadevi, Mumbai -400 025 Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its General Administration Department, through Government Pleader, O.S.High Court,Bombay Respondent Ms.Gayatri Singh i/b Ms.Bhavna Mhatre for petitioner Ms.Geeta Shastri,AGP CORAM : MRS.RANJANA DESAI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. RESERVED ON: 11th DECEMBER,2009. PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd APRIL,2010 J U D G M E N T (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) . This petition is filed challenging the order dated 7/1/2004 rejecting the claim of the father of the petitioner for pension as he had participated freedom 2 fights in Goa Swatantrya Sangram . Father of the petitioner on 4/8/1997 made application to Dhule District Gaurav Samiti that he be declared as freedom fighter of Goa Swatantrya Sangram so that he can be eligible to claim pension. The application was rejected on the ground that it was not in conformity with the norms dated 4/7/1995 laid down by the Government. The petitioner had submitted letter of recommendation given by Smt.Kamal Bhagwat . Whether the recommendations of Smt.Kamal Bhagwat were to be accepted or not was the issue before the Government earlier and on 6/12/1999 the State Government decided to accept the certificate issued by Smt.Kamal Bhagwat as valid and hence called for original certificate issued by her .Original copy of the said letter was demanded and the father of the petitioner by letter dated 21/1/2000 submitted original certificate issued to him by Kamal Bhagwat. 2] Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the case of the father of the petitioner was 3 resubmitted before the Freedom Fighter High Power Committee and Minister of State for approval, the Government rejected the application of father of the petitioner by letter dated 7/1/2004 on the ground that once the original application had been rejected and if no new point is canvassed the case cannot be reconsidered. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Government has failed to appreciate Government Resolution dated 18/8/1999 by which the certificates issued by Smt.Kamal Bhagwat were to be accepted. 3] She has further submitted that the petitioner’s father has been denied his right to pension and other consequential benefits due to this illegal decision. She has submitted that the petitioner has produced notings in his file made by the concerned authority at the time of reconsideration She has further submitted that after lapse of 5 to 6 years the Government has informed the father of the petitioner that his application was rejected. It is further submitted that the father of the 4 petitioner is 90 years old and he has no source of income. He is residing with his wife who is 76 years old. 4] Learned A.G.P. appearing for the State has submitted that the Government has properly reconsidered the application of the father of the petitioner and also considered the documents. The Government has filed affidavit in reply of Dnyanadev Laxman Sul ,Under Secretary ,General Administration Department, Mantralaya ,Mumbai opposing the claim of the petitioner . It is submitted that the claim of the father of the petitioner was earlier rejected by the High Power Committee on the ground that he has not submitted the documents which were required under Government Resolution dated 4/7/1995 i.e. certificate from Goa Vimochan Samiti for having taken part in Swatantrya Sangram, original copy of newspaper in which his name was appearing of having taken part in Swatantrya Sangram or newspaper at relevant time which gives notice of his having gone underground. So 5 the rejection was communicated to the father of the petitioner by letter dasted 13/2/1999. However, due to the recommendation of Member of Legislature Assembly of Dhule Constituency his case was placed before the High Power Committee for reconsideration and they took the decision that no new ground is made out for reconsideration and finally his application was rejected by letter dated 7/1/2004 .His name did not appear in Goa Liberation Movement in the papers which were submitted by Shri.Jayantrao Tilak. It is further submitted that though he has submitted the certificate issued by Smt.Kamal Bhagwat he could not fulfill other criteria required under the Government Resolution dated 4/7/1995 and, therefore, his claim was rejected. 5] The State of Maharashtra pursuant to the directions given by the Supreme Court by the order dated 14/5/1993 in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari and others Vs.Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1993,Supreme Court, 2127 and also the 6 decision of Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated 1/9/1994 the Government issued the Government Resolution dated 4/7/1995 . In the said Government Resolution criteria to decide the eligibility of any person for pension of the freedom fighters are incorporated . As per clause -3 of the said Government Resolution the freedom fighters were required to submit a proper proof such as : [E] Freedom Fighters Participated in Goa Freedom Movement- In the year 1955, through Goa Liberation Committee those who reached the border of Goa for satyagraha such participant Satyagrahis are paid pension . For sanction of this pension the following certificates are necessary. 1] Certificate of Participation in Goa Satyagraha from Goa Freedom Committee. 2] If available, original copy of paper cutting of that time, wherein it is mentioned that the applicant has participated in Goa Satyagraha or news item of welcome felicitation after return from the Satyagrah movement which included the name of the applicant. If this Government Resolution is considered as a basis on the point of proof of the documents then it is clear that the certificate of participation from Goa Freedom Committee is a must and original copy of paper cutting 7 that the applicant has participated Goa Swatantrya Sangram is to be produced if available (emphasis supplied) Assuming the submissions made by the learned A.G.P. that the father of the petitioner could not produce any newspaper cutting are true and accepted yet in our view his case cannot be rejected as the original certificate issued by Smt.Kamal Bhagwat was placed before the High Power Committee which fulfills the condition [E] of the Government Resolution of 4/7/1995. 6] The Government Resolution dated 10/3/1999 is produced at Exh.3 by which the Government has delegated the powers to the Collector to reconsider the applications which were earlier submitted and rejected for want of proper evidence in which the decision of the State will be final based on the recommendations made by the High Power committee. In the letter of rejection dated 7/1/2004 which is the subject matter of the petition the Government has communicated the grounds of rejection to the petitioner’s father as 8 follows. 1] Certificate of having taken part in Goa Vimochan Samiti Satyagraha. 2] Original copy of a newspaper in which your name has appeared as having taken part in the satyagraha or in the welcome accorded to returning satyagrahia. 3] Your name does not appear in Goa Vimochan Samiti list. 4] When your case was submitted to the Freedom Fighter High Power Committee for reconsideration, the Freedom Fighter High Power Committee has observed that since your application has not put forward any new evidence as per the Government Resolution dat10/3/1999 a case once closed cannot be approved again. 7] It appears from the record and the submissions made by the counsel the requirement of the proof of the documents as incorporated in the Government Resolution dated 4/7/1995 is final and if it is so then 9 the documents which are mentioned in the letter dated 7/1/2004 in fact are additional requirements as per the said Government Resolution. The said Government Resolution insists for the eligibility certificate of the Freedom Fighter (emphasis supplied )and the petitioner has submitted the eligibility certificate issued by Smt.Kamal Bhagwat. The certificates issued by Kamal Bhagwat during that period were accepted as valid certificates by the Government. The father of the petitioner under Right To Information Act has obtained the notings in his office file and said notings is a part of the petition marked as Exh.F,G and G-1 . Noting dated 1/4/2000 ,Exh.F discloses that “the original certificate of Kamal Bhagwat is now produced by the applicant and so it was again put up before the Minister.” In Exh.G , noting dated 1/4/2000 and 28/4/2000 showing that “no objection in approving the matter, while taking into consideration the facts of the matter”. Further noting G-1 disclosed the application of the father of the petitioner was rejected twice, however, at relevant time of the rejection the 10 Government has not taken any decision in respect of validity of certificate issued by Kamal Bhagwat. However by the Government Resolution dated 18/8/1999 the Government has taken policy decision that the certificates issued Smt.Kamal Bhagwat are to be considered valid and therefore, the application of the father of the petitioner is to be reconsidered. However, on the same noting the member of High Power Committee has mentioned that no new point is raised and, therefore, as per the decision dated 10/3/1999 no matter can be approved or reconsidered. 8] Hence in our opinion this view taken by the State Government is wrong and illegal as it is contrary to their own Resolution of July,1995 which specifies and restricts the requirement of the document to the eligibility certificate of the freedom fighter which is mandatory and newspaper cuttings if available are to be produced.Under such circumstances the High Power Committee ought to have considered this Government Resolution and their own policy decision of accepting 11 the certificate issued by Smt.Kamal Bhagwat. We mention that due to the defective and wrong interpretation of the Government Resolution there should not be injustice caused to any freedom fighter. Hence we find the impugned order dated 7/1/2004 is wrong ,illegal and needs to be set aside. Hence the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (c)(ii). Order dated 7/1/2004 is hereby set aside. (MRS.RANJANA DESAI,J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)