(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2861 OF 1994 Namdev Tamaji Ingle, Age : 68 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Sirasgaon (Waghrool), Post : Hasnabad, Taluka : Bhokardan, District : Jalna. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs/ Griha Mantralaya, New Delhi. 2. The State of Maharashtra 3. The Collector, Jalna, District : Jalna. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. R.B. Bagul, Advocate, holding for Mr. Uday S. Malte, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent no.1. (2) Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.2 and 3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner claims freedom fighter's pension under the scheme framed by the Central Government. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the claim of the petitioner has been erroneously rejected when, as a matter of fact, the petitioner had submitted the certificate from the jail authorities, certifying that he had undergone imprisonment for more than six months and also a certificate by a co-sufferer. 2. Perusal of the affidavit in reply, filed on behalf of respondent no.1, would reveal that since the claim of the petitioner was on the basis, that he had undergone imprisonment in Aurangabad Central Prison, the verification was done from the Aurangabad Central Prison. It has been specifically stated, that a communication was received from the Superintendent of Aurangabad Central Prison, that the registers for the period from (3) 3-8-1357 Fasli to 14-3-1958 Fasli and from 10-7-1357 Fasli to 20-8-1357 Fasli, however, name of the petitioner, Shri Namdeo Tamaji, was not found. A communication to that effect has also been annexed along with the affidavit in reply. 3. The petitioner has neither filed rejoinder to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1, nor in a position to submit the original certificate from jail authorities. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Union of India. 4. The petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Needless to state, that the interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2861