WP 9130/10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9130/2010 _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Shri G.R. Ingole Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 3. Shri Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. Date: 10.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.2.2003 by which the petitioner’s claim for pension as underground freedom fighter has been rejected. We have perused the order dated 31.1.2003. It makes reference to the Government resolution dated 4.7.1995 and states that the petitioner does not comply with the requirements for claiming WP 9130/10 2 pension as underground freedom fighter. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the concerned authority, so also the report of District Honor Committee dated 12.6.1999 to contend that he fulfills all the conditions contemplated by the Government resolution dated 4.7.1995. We have perused the District Honor Committee’s report, which is based on the affidavits filed by the petitioner of two freedom fighters, who were sentenced for about two years in the freedom movement. Over and above this, the petitioner could not place any material on record to contend that he fulfills all the three conditions viz. he had to leave his house, he had to leave his education and he was removed from the school and that he had to suffer physical disability in view of assault by the Police in the freedom movement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similarly placed persons are WP 9130/10 3 recognized as underground freedom fighters and granted pension by the State Government. We have perused the writ petition. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not taken this as a ground for seeking pension nor has he named a single freedom fighter, who, according to the petitioner, was similarly placed and granted pension by the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to certain judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court in support of his contentions, but he could not press a single judgment into service to contend that even if out of the three, one or two conditions are fulfilled by the applicant, he is entitled for pension as underground freedom fighter or that either the Court or the concerned authority has power to relax the conditions. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & others V/s Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar (AIR 2004 SC, 4264) has made it clear that criteria WP 9130/10 4 fixed by the Government for giving freedom fighter’s pension cannot be relaxed by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the writ petition. The petition is dismissed. (A.V. Nirgude, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) Dt/- 10.03.2011 ndk/c103114