Ramrao Govindrao Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4605 Bom

                                                   {1}
                                                                                     WP 5764.13.odt

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                                         
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                 
                                    Writ Petition No. 5764 of 2013

    Ramrao S/o. Govindrao Shinde
    Age 84 years, Occ. Nil.




                                                                
    R/o. Babhali, Tq. Kalamnuri,
    District Hingoli.


                                                                      ...PETITIONERS.




                                                  
           VERSUS

    1] The State of Maharashtra
       through its Secretary,
                              
       General Administration Department,
                             
       Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

    2] Freedom Fighters' Pension
       High Power Committee,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
      


       through its Secretary.
   



    3] The Collector,
       Parbhani.





                                                                      ...RESPONDENTS.

                                         .........................

                    Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate, for the Petitioner





                    Mr.S.M. Ganachari, Asst. Government Pleader, for
                    respondent no.3

                    Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate, for the Respondent nos.1 & 2.

                                         ..........................


                                              CORAM :       S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                                            K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

{2} WP 5764.13.odt

Date of Reserving the Judgment : 28th July, 2016.

Date of Pronouncing the Judgment: 10th August,,2016.

JUDGMENT : (PER K.K. SONAWANE, J.)

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent

of parties.

2] Petitioner has preferred the present petition for grant of

benefit of Samman Pension, as contemplated under the Freedom Fighters

Pension Scheme, 1972. It has been contended that the petitioner had an

active participation in the Hyderabad Mukti Sangram between period 1947 to

1948. He was the underground freedom fighter and had taken part in the

activities of Jungle Satyagraha, cutting the Shindi and Moha trees at village

Babhali, etc. The Police warrant was also issued against the petitioner for

violation of law of the Nizam Government. The petitioner remained

absconded and, therefore, the police could not arrest him.

3] The Government of Maharashtra introduced Freedom Fighters

Pension scheme for financial assistance to the freedom fighters. Therefore,

the petitioner applied in prescribed proforma for getting the benefit of the

said scheme. Petitioner submitted his application on 6.2.1989 and has

appended all requisite documents, including the document of police warrant

and its translated copy. However, uptil this date, there was no progress in

the proceedings of the petitioner for pensionary benefit under the scheme.

The Government has framed the scheme to honour the persons who had

participated in the Liberation Movement. Moreover, the claim of the

{3} WP 5764.13.odt

petitioner was placed before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti for consideration. It has

been submitted that the Zilla Gaurav Samit in its meeting dated 29.11.1994,

appreciated the documents of the petitioner and unanimously recommended

his name for pensionary benefits. The claim of the petitioner ought to have

been processed and considered in accordance with the Govt. Resolution

dated 5.9.1992. But, the respondent did not consider the application of

the petitioner in proper manner and relegated the proceedings back to the

Collector, Parbhani for requisite compliance of the Government Resolution

dated 4.7.1995.

The petitioner grumbled that there is no necessity to

comply with the requirement of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of "Tukaram Ramji Koli Vs. State

of Maharashtra" reported in 1999(3) Mh.L.J. 735, had dealt with the

issue and delinated that in the claim for grant of Samman Pension if the

recommendation by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is prior to 4 th July, 1995, then

the claim will be governed by Government Resolution dated 5.9.1992 and not

4.7.1995. Petitioner submitted the application in prescribed proforma

accompanied with the requisite documents comprising his affidavit, the age

certificate, documents of police warrant alongwith its translated copy. It

has been contended that the petitioner has complied with all the requisite

formalities as per the Govt. Resolution dated 5.9.1992 being an underground

freedom fighter in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement. There was a

recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Saimti to the petitioner for grant of

pensionary benefit prior to issuance of Government Resolution dated

4.7.1995. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for pensionary

{4} WP 5764.13.odt

benefit as per the scheme introduced by the State to honour the persons,

who had participated in the Liberation Movement. Hence, petitioner seeks

a declaration that he is eligible for the pensionary benefit as contemplated

under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972.

6] In response to notice, the respondent State appeared and

opposed the contentions put forth on behalf of petitioner by filing affidavit

in reply on record. It has been submitted that name of the petitioner was

recommended in the meeting of the Parbhani District Freedom Fighter

Gaurav Samiti dated 29.11.1994. However, the proposal of the petitioner

has been returned back for non compliance of the procedural formalities as

prescribed under the Govt. Resolution dated 4.7.1995. Thereafter, the area

of Parbhani District was split up and new Hingoli District was constituted

and, Hingoli was declared as new Collectorate since 1.5.1995. The

formalities of division consumed some time for the procedural formalities

and collecting the records of the relevant files. Lateron, there was a

meeting dated 15.1.2001 of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Hingoli, in which name

of the petitioenr was not recommended as he failed to comply with the

criteria laid down in the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. Therefore,

it has been submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit as

claimed in this petition. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

7] We have heard the arguments canvassed on behalf of both sides

at length. We have gone through the relevant documents produced on

{5} WP 5764.13.odt

record. Learned Counsel Shri Panpatte laid much emphasis on the

circumstance that petitioner has applied for the pensionary benefit in the

year 1989. He had produced relevant documents required for the same.

Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was also recommended by the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti, Parbhani, in its meeting dated 29.11.1994. However,

respondent was found reluctant to grant pensionary benefit to the

petitioner. The learned Counsel Shri Panpatte relied upon the exposition in

the case of "Tukaram Ramji Koli" (cited supra) and requested to allow the

petition for grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioenr.

8] It is worthy to note that the Samman Pension scheme came to

be introduced by the Government of Maharashtra to honour and where it

was necessary to mitigate the sufferings of those, who had given their all for

the country in the hour of its need. Name of the scheme itself is,

"Swantantrya Sainik Samman Pension Scheme" and it is meant to benefit the

freedom fighters. The Apex Court, in the matter of "Mukundlal Bhandari

vs. Union of India" reported in AIR 1993 SC 2127, has observed that the

scheme was not to reward or compensate the sacrifices made in the freedom

movement. But, the object of the scheme is to honour the Freedom Fighters

by providing some monetary assistance in hour of need to them. It would be

contrary to the spirit to convert the scheme into some kind of programme of

compensation and the scheme should retain its high objective with which it

was motivated.

{6} WP 5764.13.odt

9] In view of the aforesaid object and purpose of the scheme,

what is necessary into the matter in hand is to determine the factum of

eligibility of the petitioner to award the benefit of the scheme. The proof of

involvement/participation of the petitioner in the Liberation Movement

would be the sole criteria to ascertain the eligibility of the petitioner for

benefit of the scheme. Admittedly, pensionary benefits is required to be

sanctioned only after the production of requisite proof of being underground

freedom fighter. It is not in dispute that the State Government has issued

various Government Resolutions time and again laying down the guidelines to

scrutinize the application for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension to various

categories of the freedom fighters. Accordingly, on 5.9.1992, the

Government issued a Government Resolution regarding determination of age

in case of freedom fighters and the minimum age of the applicant is required

to be 16 years. Moreover, it has been submitted that there should be a

recommendation from the Zilla Garav Samiti on the application made for

grant of Freedom Fighters Pension to the underground freedom fighters as

well as the application should be accompanied with the recommendation

letter of the two freedom fighters of the concerned district who are

knowing the applicant since the period of freedom movement. Thereafter,

the State has issued another Government Resolution on 4.7.1995 and certain

guidelines came to be added for scrutiny of the applications to grant

pensionary benefit.

10] In the instant case, parties are ad-idem to the fact that the

{7} WP 5764.13.odt

petitioner applied for pensionary benefit in the month of February 1989.

Thereafter, his application was processed and placed before the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti, Parbhani, for appreciation. After due deliberation, the name of the

petitioner was recommended on verification of the documents, which were

scribed in Urdu dialect. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of "Tukaram

Ramji Koli" (supra) has observed as under :-

"We may also clarify that it will not be proper for the

Government to reject the applications processed by the Gaurav

Samiti and pending before the Government for final decision

solely on the ground that they do not comply with the

requirements of G.R. dated 4th July, 1995 specifically when all

these claims have been scrutinized by the Collector and

recommended by; the Gaurav Samit on the basis of the

guidelines/requirements that were in force at the relevant

time"

11] The petitioner filed affidavit in rejoinder and contended that

he had participated in the Hyderabad Mukti Sangram between the period

1947 to 1948 as underground freedom fighter under the leadership of

veteran Freedom Fighter Shri Vitthalrao Champatrao Naik and Shri Vithoba

Bhise. He had produced the letters of correspondence exchanged in

between himself and the Revenue Authority, Parbhani during 1989-90 in

which he made it clear that his name has been mentioned at Sr. No.5 in the

{8} WP 5764.13.odt

police report in Column No. 3 scribed in Urdu dialect. He has also produced

the certificate of veteran freedom fighter Vitthalrao Naik and Vithoba Bhise

in support of his claim.

12] We have perused the documents minutely which categorically

demonstrate the participation of the petitioner in the Liberation Movement.

It would be reiterated that spirit of the scheme is to honour and

acknowledge the valuable sacrifices of the freedom fighter in freedom

movement and to provide monetary assistance in hour of need to them.

Obviously, the petitioner is clamoring for the pensionary benefits since the

year 1989. Moreover, his name was recommended by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti

after due deliberation and consideration of the circumstances relating to his

participation in the Liberation Movement prior to 4.7.1995. Therefore, it

would be fallacious to turn down the claim for pensionary benefit on the

ground of non-compliance of eligibility criteria as laid down under the

Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. We are of the opinion that it would

be unjust and improper to rebuff the claim of the petitioner on such flimsy

ground who proved his sacrifice in the Liberation Movement. The document

of police report, affidavits of the veteran freedom fighters produced on

record categorically indicate his involvement in the Liberation Movement. In

such circumstances, by taking recourse to the judgment of the Full Bench

mentioned above, we find that the claim of the petitioner needs to be

scrutinized on the basis of guidelines which were in force at the relevant

time. There is no impediment to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner

{9} WP 5764.13.odt

has fulfilled the eligibility criteria to claim benefit under the Swatrantrya

Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The petitioner is entitled to receive the

pensionary benefit under the scheme, as claimed from the date of his

application dated 6.2.1989.

    13]             In the result, we pass the following order :-

                    [a]      The writ petition is allowed;




                                             
                    [b]      It is held and declared that petitioner is underground
                              

freedom fighter having participated in Hyderabad Mukti Sangram and

respondents are directed to issue requisite certificate as underground

freedom fighter to the petitioner;

[c] The pensionary benefits under the scheme as claimed by

the petitioner be paid to him from the date of his application i.e.

since February, 1989;

[d] The respondents shall pay the arrears of pensionary

benefits to the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within four

months from the date of this order.

[e] Rule made absolute in above terms. There shall be no

orders as to costs.

            [K.K. SONAWANE]                            [S.V. GANGAPURWALA]
              JUDGE                                           JUDGE.
    grt/-