( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2831 OF 2000 Kishansinha s/o. Tukaramsinha Chandel, Age : 77 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Chinchgavhan, Taluka : Hadgaon, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Desk Officer, Freedom Fighters High Power Committee, New Administrative Building, 19th Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 4. The Collector, Nanded, District : Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... ( 2 ) Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Kendre, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 4. Mr. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. ........................ W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 3980 OF 2000 Shri Nivrutti s/o. Kondabarao Tagadpalle, Age : 73 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Kanyara (Bk.), Taluka : Hadgaon, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Collector, District : Nanded. 3. The Desk Officer, Freedom Fighters High Power Committee, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Bombay - 32. .. Respondents. ................................ ( 3 ) Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Kendre, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent nos.3. ............................. W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 4023 OF 2000 Maroti s/o. Punjaji Pawar, through L.R. : Gangabai w/o. Marotirao Pawar, Age : 72 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Shivpuri, Taluka : Hadgaon, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Bombay. ( 4 ) 3. The Desk Officer, (G.A.D.) Freedom Fighter Section, 19th floor, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 4. The Collector, Nanded. .. Respondents. ........................... Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Kendre, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 4. Mr. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. ***************** CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 26TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. All these three petitions have been filed with a prayer for direction to the respondents to give them the benefit of the Freedom Fighters' Scheme framed by the State of Maharashtra. 2. The petitioners claim that they had participated in the ( 5 ) 1947-48 Hyderabad Liberation Movement and were required to be underground. It is the contention of the petitioners, that they were working under the leadership of freedom fighters, namely, Shri Jaiwantrao Waipankar, Yadavrao Master and Ganpatrao Yadavrao Tagadpalle, and they were required to go underground for substantial period. It is, therefore, submitted that they are entitled for the benefits under the said Scheme. 3. Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent / Committee, vehemently opposes the petitions. He submits that no reliable and cogent evidence has been produced on behalf of the petitioners to substantiate their claims. He submits that perusal of some of the affidavits would reveal that they are interpolated and the State Government has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners, finding that the claim was not substantiated by documentary proof. 4. Perusal of the Government Resolution dated 7th August 1992 would reveal that for being eligible to the benefits of the Freedom Fighters' Scheme, the name ought to have been recommended by the District Level Gaurav Samiti. The recommendations of, at least, two freedom fighters, who have been held to be entitled under the said scheme, and who were knowing the candidate concerned, from the time of movement, should be annexed along with the application. ( 6 ) 5. The Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 has provided the details regarding evidence which is to be submitted in support of the claim of the persons seeking benefit under the Freedom Fighters' Scheme. In so far as the claim under the category of underground Freedom Fighters is concerned, it is stipulated that the applicant concerned will have to substantiate as to what hardships he was required to suffer. He would be required to prove that either he was compelled to leave his house, that he was required to leave his education, or that he was assaulted by Police in such a manner, which resulted in his disability. However, on perusal of the provisions under the Scheme, it would reveal that either of these conditions is required to be fulfilled and not all the three. A person could be entitled under the scheme, if he was required to leave his house, or if he was required to leave his education or he was assaulted in such a manner, that he received physical disability. The said Government Resolution would further require that the certificate of two freedom fighters who were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two years or who were underground for a period of two years, in support of the claim of the candidate should be submitted. The said Government Resolution further provides that if any official document in support of the claim is available or if any newspaper report, reporting that the candidate concerned was absconding, is available, the same should also be ( 7 ) submitted. 6. Undoubtedly, the claims of all the three petitioners have been recommended by the District Level Gaurav Committee. No doubt, that in case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4023/2003, there appears to be certain overwriting in one affidavit i.e. affidavit of Shri Nagorao Bhujangrao Mugal. However, claim of a candidate cannot be rejected on the basis of one solitary document. 7. It is pertinent to note that this is a third round of litigation before this Court. In earlier two rounds, the State Government was specifically directed by this Court, to examine the claim of the petitioners and if the application was not traceable, writ petition itself was directed to be treated as an application. In this view of the matter, it would not be appropriate to reject the claim of the petitioners on the basis of one solitary document without considering the other evidence in support of the petitioners. We have, therefore, examined the original files of all the petitioners, which have been produced by the learned Counsel for the Committee. 8. In so far as petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4023/2000 is concerned, apart from the affidavit of Shri Nagorao s/o. Bhujangrao Mugal, there is other evidence in support of claim of ( 8 ) the petitioner. One Shri Laxman Rama Devsarkar, who is recipient of "Tamrapat" and freedom fighter's pension under the Central Government Scheme, has filed an affidavit stating that he knows the petitioner, Maroti Punjaji Pawar, since last 50 years and that he had participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement between 1942 to 1948. He has specifically stated that the petitioner has worked under the leadership of Shri Jaiwantrao Waipankar and Shri Yadavrao Master. The details of the activities, which were undertaken by the present petitioner, have also been narrated in the said affidavit. He has specifically stated that the petitioner had participated in the war launched by the freedom fighters against Nizam Government, at Dorli, wherein various freedom fighters became martyrs and number of persons were required to go underground. It has been stated that the petitioner is one of such persons who was required to go underground. 9. Another affidavit of one Shri Kanhoba Satwa Bhurewad, who is recipient of freedom fighter's pension, has been submitted by the petitioner in support of his claim. He has stated that the freedom fighters had gone for looting the Bank and the petitioner was personally present. An affidavit of one Shri Laxman Rama Gaikwad, who is also recipient of freedom fighter's pension from the State Government, as well as, Central Government, has also been filed. The said affidavit also narrates ( 9 ) about the incident at Dorli and also another incident at Kamari, wherein he states that the petitioner had participated along with him, in looting the Government Godown. 10. An affidavit of one Shri Santoba Gopalrao Dhongade, who is recipient of freedom fighter's pension under the State Government, as well as, Central Government Scheme, is also submitted by the petitioner in support of his claim. The said affidavit clearly states, in detail, the acts rendered by the present petitioner in the various movements at Dorli, Devsari and Umarkhed. Another affidavit of one Shri Kondba Sakharam Pawar, who is also recipient of the freedom fighter's pension, is also placed on record to the same effect. 11. In the light of these five affidavits, we find that merely denying the claim of the petitioner, on the basis of certain overwriting in the affidavit of Shri Nagorao s/o. Bhujangrao Mugal, would not be permissible. 12. Apart from that, the petitioner has also placed on record, a certificate issued by the Police Patil of Marlegaon, stating therein that during 1947-48, the petitioner was required to leave the said village and his mother and wife were required to stay with one Tukaram Ladba, as a refugee. ( 10 ) 13. Perusal of the recommendation of the District Level Committee would also reveal that the District Level Committee has considered the entire aspect of the matter before recommending the claim of the petitioners. In this view of the matter, we find that the decision of the Committee, in denying the claim of the petitioner in the said petition, was not justified. 14. In so far as the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2831/2000 is concerned, it would reveal that the petitioner has filed an affidavit of one Shri Ganpatrao s/o. Yadavrao Tagadpalle, who is recipient of freedom fighter's pension. He has stated that the petitioner had participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement under the leadership of Shri Jaiwantrao Waipankar and Shri Yadavrao Master. An affidavit of one Shri Laxman s/o. Rama Devasarkar has also been filed. This affidavit gives details about the war launched by the freedom fighters under the Nizam Government. An affidavit of Shri Nagorao s/o. Bhujangrao Mugal has also been placed on record, stating therein that the petitioner has personally participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement under the leadership of Shri Jaiwantrao Waipankar and Shri Yadavrao Master. The details regarding the acts rendered by the petitioner are given in the affidavit. He has clearly stated in the affidavit, that while he was engaged in the freedom movement, he was arrested and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for more than two years. The ( 11 ) present petitioner had absconded and continued to work remaining underground. 15. A similar affidavit of one Shri Vikram Nemaji Potare, who is also recipient of freedom fighter's pension, has been filed by the petitioner. Another affidavit of one Shri Santosh Gopalrao Dhongade, who is recipient of freedom fighter's pension under State Government, as well as, Central Government, to the similar effect has been filed. Two more affidavits of one Shri Laxman s/o. Rama Devasarkar and Shri Laxman s/o. Rama Gaikwad, to the similar effect, giving in detail, the activities undertaken by the petitioner, have been filed by the petitioner in support of his claim which certify to the same effect. The case of the present petitioner has also been duly recommended by the District Level Committee. 16. It can, thus, be clearly seen that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2831/2000 has filed the affidavits of more than two freedom fighters who had participated in the said movement. In that view of the matter, we find that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner, in the present petition, was also not justified. 17. In so far as petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3980/2000 is concerned, he has filed affidavits of Shri Ganpatrao s/o. Yadavrao Tagadpalle, Shri Vishwanath s/o. Gunaji Kasewad, ( 12 ) Shri Govindrao s/o. Narsingrao More and Shri Nagorao s/o. Bhujangrao Mugal, who are admittedly, recipients of the freedom fighters' pension, either of the State Government only or of both, the Central Government, as well as, State Government. In the said affidavits also, the details regarding the activities of the petitioner in the freedom movement and his remaining underground have been given. The case of the present petitioner was also recommended by the District Level Gaurav Committee. Perusal of the entire details, as to what was being done by the petitioner, in the said movement, have been given in the said affidavits. The District Level Gaurav Committee also, while recommending the case of the petitioner, has thoroughly applied its mind to the facts before it. In that view of the matter, we find, that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner, in the present petition, was also not justified. 18. In the result, the petitions are allowed. (i) The impugned orders passed by the State Government, thereby rejecting claims of the petitioners for freedom fighters' pension, are quashed and set aside. It is held that the petitioners are entitled to freedom fighters' pension, under the scheme framed by the State of Maharashtra, from the date of their first application. ( 13 ) (ii) The respondent / State is directed to pay freedom fighters' pension, to the petitioners, from the date of their first application. The respondent / State shall start payment of freedom fighters' pension, to the petitioners, within a period of three months from today. The arrears of pension, from the date of their first application, till realization of pension, shall be paid to the petitioners, within a period of six months from today. 19. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, parties shall bear their own costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2831etc