K.L. Wadane, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The petitioner assails the order passed by respondent no. 2 dated 9.10.2012 whereby claim of the petitioner for grant of Sanman Pension as underground freedom fighter is rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:

It is the contention of the petitioner that he had participated in freedom movement called as "Hyderabad Mukti Sangram" during the period 1947-48 and has worked as underground freedom fighter in the said movement. The petitioner had actively participated and involved in the activities, such as:

(i) Campaigning the people against Erstwhile Nizam.

(ii) Distributed pamphlets to the people against Nizam Government.

(iii) Collection of funds for the movement.

(iv) Supply of arms/weapons and information to the volunteers.

(v) Providing meals to the Senior volunteers.

(vi) Sharing secret information of police movement to the workers.

(vii) Arranging for attacks on police.

(viii) Cutting of trees on Government land.

(ix) Making arrangement for meeting of Senior freedom fighters.

4. The petitioner had worked as underground freedom fighter under the leadership and guidance of veteran freedom fighter Wamanrao Lokhande, Khanderao Khalse and had participated and taken training at Jambhora Camp.

5. The Government of India has introduced the pension scheme, namely "Swabhiman Sanman Pension" whereby the persons who fought in various freedom struggles and participated were declared to be entitled and eligible for the benefits flowing from the said scheme.

6. The petitioner submitted an application to respondent no. 1 on 29.12.1981 requesting the respondents to grant Sanman Pension as underground freedom fighter for his participation in the Hyderabad Mukti Sangram movement.

7. The Collector/respondent no. 4 by communication dated 20.8.1984 informed to respondent no. 3 that the petitioner had participated in the movement and is eligible to get the Pension, but the respondent no. 2 has not taken any decision.

8. On 5.1.1982 the petitioner forwarded an application to the respondent in prescribed form, so also the affidavit of one Janu Narwade, however, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by respondent no. 2 on 14.5.1999 without giving any special reason. Said decision was not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about rejection of his claim in the year 2012.

9. Again on 1.3.2012 the petitioner has submitted an application for reconsideration of his claim with affidavit of one Khanderao Khalse. Subsequently, the petitioner was given questionnaire to which he has answered. It is further contended by the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner was accepted by two members of the Committee, however, the Hon'ble Chief Minister has disapproved the same and accordingly it was communicated by the impugned communication, dated 9.10.2012.

10. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner was required to stay away from home. He was required to leave the education or expel from the education or he suffered atrocities from police and also suffered disablement. Similarly, there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner suffered imprisonment for two years or was proclaimed offender. The petitioner had not submitted any Government record certifying that the petitioner was underground freedom fighter, nor he submitted a document in the form of news paper indicating that he was underground freedom fighter. Lastly, the claim of the petitioner was not recommended by Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

11. Affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 is placed on record and it is contended that the case of the petitioner is governed as per Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and the criteria or the conditions laid down in the afore said Government Resolution have not been complied with by the petitioner. Therefore, the