The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of producing required proof as prescribed by the Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980, and the impact of failing to meet the eligibility criteria on the claim for pension benefits.

JUDGMENT :

R. N. LADDHA, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the Parties.

2. By this writ petition the petitioner Smt. Rukhminbai, widow of Asaram Daulatrao Kale who died on 5 April, 2017, claims to have been entitled to be conferred with benefits of Pension which, according to her, should have lawfully accrued to her deceased husband Asaram, during his life time, under the “Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980” (the ‘Scheme’ for short).

3. The material averments in the petition may be summarized as under :

(a) The petitioner is the widow of Asaram Kale, who had been claiming himself to be a freedom fighter. This Asaram Kale is claimed to have made an application to the District Collector, Aurangabad on November 24, 1994 which was accompanied by the requisite documentary evidence, for grant of pension under the Scheme. The petitioner claims that her husband and upon his death, she herself is entitled to the benefit of the Scheme. According to the petitioner, her husband had actively participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement and as a consequence thereof had suffered various losses and hardships. Moreover, he had to remain underground during the period 1947-48.

(b) The petitioner says that on the eve of the Silver Jubilee of the Independence of the Country, in the year 1972, a Central Scheme was introduced which provided for grant of pension to freedom fighters and their eligible dependents if the said freedom fighters had died. Later, in the year 1980, with certain modifications, this Scheme was renamed the “Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980”.

(c) The monthly pension was considered a token of respect for the contribution of freedom fighters in the freedom struggle. The Scheme as well as the Government Resolution dated 4 July, 1995 prescribed the Eligibility Criteria for grant of pension, under which, her husband and upon his death, the petitioner was entitled to receive pension under the Scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that though the District Gaurav Committee had forwarded the application made by her deceased husband to the concerned Authority, there was no further action taken on it. He had, therefore, made a Representation dated February 16, 2011 to the Deputy Secretary, GAD, Government of Maharashtra, requesting grant of pension. However, nothing was conveyed to him. According to the petitioner, for the first time in the month of January, 2014, her husband came to know that his claim for pension under the Scheme was rejected on 12 May, 1999. Upon learning of the rejection, he made a representation dated 17 February, 2014 and also submitted Commendatory Affidavits of veteran freedom fighters. Again, on 22 April, 2015 he sent a detailed representation to the Deputy Secretary, GAD, (Freedom Fighters Cell), Government of Maharashtra. It is claimed by the petitioner that by letters dated 10 September, 1998, 10 April, 2008 and 21 June, 2015; the Members of the Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly respectively had also recommended the claim of her husband. Unfortunately, on 5 April, 2017 her husband died. The petitioner then obtained all relevant documents, sought legal advice and made an application dated 9 October, 2020 to the respondent No 3, appending therewith a Certificate purportedly issued by Police Patil of village Nandar, Taluqa Paithan dated 7 June, 1996, which was available with her and also submitted the Commendatory Affidavits of veteran freedom fighters with their Certificates of imprisonment.

(d) However, her claim for pension came to be turned down by relying on Govt Resolution dated 2 June, 2016, by the order dated 4 November, 2020. According to the petitioner, the decision taken by the State Govt. was erroneous as it failed to consider the material placed on record.

4. We have heard Mr. V. S. Panpatte, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.

5. Mr. Panpatte, learned