1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.5097/2008. Ramchandra Ramji Gabhane ..vs.. State of Mahara and others. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr.K.R.Lambat, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.A.G.Mujumdar, AGP for respondents 1 & 3. CORAM: D.D.SINHA and A.P.BHANGALE,JJ. DATE : 3rd March, 2009. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the outset, the following facts are relevant - The petitioner has approached this court by filing Writ Petition No.2891 of 2005, seeking direction against the order dated 19th July, 2001 passed by the State rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of Freedom Fighter's pension. This court vide order dated 2 14/6/2005 allowed the petition by observing thus - “After hearing the parties including learned A.G.P., who waives notice on behalf of the respondents, it has been pointed out that after G.R. Of 4th July, 1995, there is no requirement of age if the freedom fighter otherwise satisfies the requirement for grant of pension. In the instant case, as we have seen the only ground by which the pension granted in favour of the petitioner was canceled was on the ground of false birth certificate. No other reasons were given. Learned A.G.P. points out to the order dated 5/2/2002 contends that apart from the Birth Certificate, the petitioner had not produced any other documents. Having heard the counsel for the parties rejection of the ground given is without jurisdiction. The impugned order dated 5/2/2002 is, therefore, without jurisdiction. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.2, consider the petitioner's claim based on what is st out in the judgment, and if the petitioner satisfies all the requirements, to grant the pension 3 due from the time when it was withdrawn/cancelled. The entire exercise is to be completed within a period of two months from today.” 3. After the above referred decision of this court, the matter was reconsidered by the State, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 9/2/2007 on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence including the date of birth certificate in order to establish that the petitioner was the freedom fighter and was, therefore, entitled for grant of pension. 4. Petitioner once again on earlier occasion filed Writ Petition No.419 of 2008, which was disposed of by this court vide order dated 24th September, 2008. The said order reads thus - “The claim of a freedom fighter for grant of pension was rejected by the State Government authorities on the ground that the claimant's age was less than 16 years when he participated in the freedom movement and he was therefore dis-entitled for pension in view of the State Government Resolution dated 5/9/1992. In Writ Petition challenging the said denial it was 4 contended that the age mentioned in the said resolution related to the age at the time of making of an application and not at the time of participation in the freedom movement. Held, that the plain meaning which could be attributed to the words mentioned in the Resolution indicated that the age of the person shall not be below 16 years at the time of making of the application and it had nothing to do with the age at the time of participation in the freedom movement. Merely because a person below 16 years of age had participated in the freedom movement, on the basis of age there could not be discrimination made in the matter of granting pension to such person. Age cannot be the criterion for granting of such a pension. It was also common knowledge that several persons below 16 years of age had participated in the freedom movement and were also receiving the Central Government pension. Persons below 16 years of age at the time of their participation in the freedom movement cannot be denied the benefit of freedom fighter's pension under the Scheme of the State Government on the ground of age. [Order passed by authorities denying pension set aside and provisional pension at Rs.750/- per month directed to be granted giving liberty to authorities to reconsider the claim on merits other than age criterion] 5. The present is the third writ petition filed by the petitioner. 5 6. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. It is no doubt true that the Division Bench by order dated 14th June, 2005 has considered the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1995 and observed that as per the said Government Resolution, there was no requirement of age if the Freedom Fighter otherwise satisfies the requirement for grant of pension. Since the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of age vide order dated 19th July, 2005, this court set aside the said order by order dated 14th June, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No.2891 of 2005 and remanded the matter back to respondent no.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh. It is brought to the notice of this court by the learned A.G.P. that the authorities reconsidered the claim of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighter's pension on all grounds and found that the petitioner did not submit any documentary or other evidence as required to be submitted by him in view of Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1995 and therefore, the authorities came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that he was a freedom fighter and therefore, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected. This court vide order dated 24th September, 2008 6 remanded the matter in view of the order dated 14/6/2005 passed by this court in W.P.No.2981 of 2005. It is no doubt true that in view of the decision rendered by this court in case of Tukaram Ramji Koli ..vs.. State of Maharashtra 1999(3) Mh.L.J. 735, it is held that all applications pending on 4th July, 1995 before the Collector must be processed in terms of directives laid down in Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1995 except in cases where Zilla Gaurav Samiti has already recommended the case for pension to the Government. 7. In the instant case, it is specifically contended by the learned A.G.P. for the State that the petitioner never submitted any documentary or other evidence to show that he is the Freedom Fighter and in absence thereof, the recommendations, if any, by the Gaurav Samity were obtained without there being any evidence to support the claim. The affidavit filed on record, shows that when the petitioner was given second opportunity, after the matter was remanded by the Division Bench of this court to produce documentary evidence as well as other evidence to justify his claim, in view of the concerned Government Resolution, the petitioner did not 7 adduce any evidence; documentary or otherwise, to establish that the petitioner was the freedom fighter and therefore, Gaurav Samiti rejected the claim of the petitioner. 8. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as well as orders passed by this court from time to time, we are of the view that the petitioner failed to produce documentary or other evidence in order to establish that the petitioner comes in the category of freedom fighter. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for showing indulgence. The writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. chute