The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the specific eligibility criteria and producing substantial evidence as outlined in the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 for claiming benefits under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, 1972.

K.K. Sonawane, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner is agitating the validity, correctness and propriety of the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 4th August, 2004, rejecting the claim for grant of benefit of Samman Pension as envisaged under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, 1972.

2. The factual matrix emerging from the circumstances on record in this petition is that, the petitioner had taken active participation in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement and worked as an underground freedom fighter. He had participated in the activities like campaigning against the erstwhile Nizam Government. He had collected funds for the sake of Liberation Movement. He supplied weapons to the activists of the movement. He was providing secret information about the police activities to the other workers etc. The petitioner participated in the freedom movement as underground freedom fighter. The veteran leaders – Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Kondiba Surne, Nagorao Mugal, Bhujangrao Panchal, Govind More, Rajendra Sangewar and others were the associates of the petitioner in the liberation movement.

3. According to the petitioner, the Government of India introduced a scheme providing grant of pension to the freedom fighters and considering the eligibility criteria, he is entitled to get the benefit of pension under the scheme. Therefore, in the year 1990, the petitioner preferred an application and claimed the benefit of Samman Pension under the Government Scheme. The petitioner submitted all the requisite documents in support of his claim including the affidavits of veteran leaders/freedom fighters of the Liberation Movement. However, the respondent authority did not take into consideration the claim of the petitioner and kept the application pending uptill 1995. The circumstances constrained the petitioner to file Writ Petition No. 4344 of 1995 and after appreciating the facts and circumstances, this Court issued directions to the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner on merits within a period of six months. Thereafter, the concerned Collector forwarded the proposal to the Government Authority. However, after considering the relevant documents produced on behalf of petitioner, the government authority was not convinced to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner and rejected the claim vide order dated 16.11.1996, on the ground that the petitioner failed to fulfill the eligibility criteria required under the scheme. Being dissatisfied with the order of rejection of claim, petitioner again approached to this Court and filed W.P. No. 744 of 1998 for re-appraisal of his proposal for grant of pensionary benefit under the scheme. Meanwhile, the petitioner moved another application on 30.4.1998 in prescribed proforma before the District collector, accompanying with all requisite documentary evidence for grant of pensionary benefit under the scheme. Petitioner appended the affidavits of veteran freedom fighters, namely, S/Shri Gangaprasad Yetalkar, Govindrao More, Nagorao Mugal in support of his claim. These freedom fighters have certified that the petitioner had actively participated in the Liberation Movement. In the proceeding of W.P. No. 744 of 1998, the directions were issued by this Court to the respondent to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh within the period of six months. Despite the efforts to pursue the application, the petitioner did not receive any response from Government authority. Eventually petitioner received the letter dated 10-12-2001, from respondent in which it has been communicated to the petitioner that his claim cannot be granted for non-compliance of conditions prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. The petitioner immediately filed a representation on 15.1.2002 against the rejection of his claim and requested to review the earlier order dated 10.12.2001. Moreover, the circumstances constrained the petitioner to file another writ petition No. 3465 of 2003 and put in ques