1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1603 OF 2008 Basantabai W/o. Maniklal Jaiswal Age 85 years, Occupation Nil, R/o. Saigaon, Taluka Badnapur, District Jalna. .. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 2] The Chairman, Freedom Fighters' High Power Committee, New Administrative Building 19th Floor, Opposite Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3] The District Felicitation Committee for Freedom Fighers Through the Collector, Jalna. .. Respondent. --- Mr. S.S. Chillarge, Advocate holding for Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, AGP for respondent No.1. Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 18TH JANUARY, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER A.P. DESHPANDE, J]:- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 2] It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner had participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement as an underground freedom fighter, during the period from 1946 to 1948. The petitioner further states that her husband Shri Maniklal Jaiswal expired on 28/1/1999 and hence, she has filed the present petition claiming adjudication of the application made by her deceased husband for grant of freedom fighter's pension. 3] Some time in the year 1985, the deceased husband of the petitioner had made an application for grant of freedom fighter's pension. However, the same came to be rejected vide order dated 26-5-1995/24-7-1995, on the ground that the application was barred by time. Thereafter, the deceased yet again applied to the authorities for the same relief, Vide communication dated 11th August, 1995. The petitioner's husband was directed to produce the evidence and documents to substantiate the claim for grant of freedom-fighter's pension. It is the case of the petitioner that her deceased husband had forwarded all the documents vide communication dated 24/10/1996. . As the second application moved by the deceased husband of the petitioner dated 11/8/1995 was not decided,the husband of the petitioner 3 was constrained to file a Writ Petition bearing No. 939/1998, which has been disposed of by this court vide order dated 18/11/1998, by directing the respondents to consider and decide the said application within a period of 4 months from the date of the said order. The application dated 11/8/1995 has been rejected by the State Government vide order dated 27/6/2000, on the ground that the petitioner's husband has failed to comply with the conditions laid down in the Government Resolution dated 4/7/1995. 4] It does appear that unaware of the said order passed by the State Government, the Collector has issued a notice to the deceased husband of the petitioner on 29th November, 2006, calling upon him to attend a meeting organized by the Collector, with a view to dispose of the pending cases. After receipt of the communication dated 29/11/2006, the present petition has been filed in the year 2008, seeking a direction against the respondents, to consider and decide the application filed by the deceased husband of the petitioner in the year 1985. 5] The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the first application moved by the deceased husband of the petitioner was of the year 1985, the same ought to have been decided at the touch-stone of the requirements laid down under the Government Resolution dated 5/9/1992 and not under the Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1995. Suffice it to state that under the old Government Resolution of 1992, only 3 conditions were to be satisfied by the applicant claiming freedom fighter's pension, whereas, under the 1995 Government Resolution, few more conditions are 4 required to be satisfied. The criteria laid down in 1995 Govt. Resolution is more stringent than the one laid down in 1992 Govt. Resolution. 5] Perusal of the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in the matter of “Tukaram Ramji Koli and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another” reported in 1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 735, would reveal that barring the cases, wherein The Zilla Gaurav Committee had made recommendations for grant of pension to the State Government, all other cases pending with the Collector, are required to be decided by applying the criteria laid down in the Government Resolution dated 4/7/1995. Thus, the only question, which needs to be looked into is, as to whether, was the case of the deceased husband of the petitioner favourably recommended by Zilla Gaurav Committee, any time before 4/7/1995 and the answer is no. Hence, the petitioner's husband's application has to be decided in adherence to the Government Resolution dated 4/7/1995. 6] Perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 18/11/1998 in W.P. No. 939/1998 filed by the deceased husband of the petitioner would reveal that the earlier application moved by the deceased husband of the petitioner was rejected on 24/7/1995 and thereafter, the deceased husband of the petitioner had moved yet another application on 11/8/1995, which was pending and this court directed the respondents to decide the said application dated 11/8/1995 within 4 months. 5 . Therefore, we have no iota of doubt that the application moved by the deceased husband of the present petitioner in regard to which writ of Mandamus was issued, having been filed on 11/8/1995, the said application had to be decided at the touch-stone of the criteria laid down under the Government Resolution dated 4/7/1995. In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the respondents, rejecting the application moved by the petitioner's deceased husband on the ground that he has failed to comply with the requirements laid down in the Government resolution dated 4/7/1995. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in the petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [N.D. DESHPANDE,J.] [A.P. DESHPANDE.J.] Grt/-