Shrihari P. Davare, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner, namely, Purushottam Vyankatrao Dehedkar, who was of 87 years, filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed as under:-

“(A) This petition be kindly allowed;

(B) Record and proceedings in respect of the petitioner’s claim for freedom fighter’s benefits with the respondents be kindly called;

(C) By issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, impugned orders dated 10.11.2006 and 4.7.1995 issued by respondents be quashed and set aside;

(D) By issue of writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, the respondents be kindly directed to grant to the petitioner freedom fighter’s pension with effect from 1.1.1995 along with all incidental, ancillary and consequential benefits;

(E) By issue of writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, the respondents be kindly directed to grant to the petitioner freedom fighter’s pension with effect from 1.1.1995 along with all incidental, ancillary and consequential benefits;”

3. During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner expired and his heirs and legal representatives as petitioner nos. 1(A) to 1(F) have been brought on record, as per order of this Court passed on 4.8.2008 in Civil Application No. 8208 of 2008, who pursued the present petition.

4. Respondent no. 1 is the State of Maharashtra represented through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mumbai; whereas respondent no. 2 is High Power Committee of Freedom Fighters represented through its President, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai and respondent no. 3 is the Collector, Jalna.

5. The petitioner claims to have participated in freedom struggle and took part in Vande Mataram movement and also claims to have engaged himself in multifarious activities of freedom struggle. It is also claimed that the name of the deceased petitioner was struck off from the school record and he was dubbed as Congress gunda by Razakars and he was also given life threats and was driven out of his village namely Dahedkarwadi.

6. It is also claimed that deceased petitioner was a member of Satyagraha in “Hyderabad Mukti Sangram” and he was Swayansevak. It is further claimed that deceased petitioner worked with renowned freedom fighters and also worked under the leadership of Late Padmavibhushan Govindbhai Shroff and Senior Freedom Fighter namely Shri Bhausaheb Vaishampayan. It is also stated that deceased petitioner had to maintain mother of Late renowned freedom fighter Shri Bhausaheb Vaishampayan by taking risk of his life.

7. Moreover, it is further stated that deceased petitioner became old and his economic condition was deteriorating and he had become dependent on others, and therefore, he applied for freedom fighter’s benefits in the prescribed format and produced the affidavits of freedom fighters and relevant papers. He also wrote a letter to respondent no.3 on 13.11.1996 pointing out his involvement in the freedom struggle as an underground freedom fighter and appended required affidavits of renowned freedom fighters and the relevant certificates from the School along with the said Application.

8. Moreover, deceased petitioner also wrote letter to respondent no.2 on 15.2.2003, since there was no progress in respect of his application for benefits of freedom fighter. Moreover, deceased petitioner sent communication dated 19.7.2003 to the Chairman of respondent no.2, but still he did not receive any response from the said authorities. So also, considering the pitiable condition of deceased petitioner, the Member of Legislative Assembly had written a letter to the concerned Minister on 7.9.2003 and requested for consideration of deceased p