The court held that the assessment of freedom fighter pension claims must prioritize substantive evidence over strict adherence to procedural requirements, especially when evaluating claims from elderly applicants.

JUDGMENT :

(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) :

1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of both the sides.

2. The Orig. Petitioner is no more and the Petition is being pursued by his widow. The Original Petitioner, who claimed to be an ‘Underground Freedom Fighter’, applied for Freedom Fighters’ Pension in March-2004 under the ‘Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme’ which was introduced by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said G.R.’). The Petitioner claimed to have participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement. As no decision was taken on the said Application of the Petitioner for a considerable time, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3601 of 2016 seeking declaration and directions. The said Petition was decided by this Court by order dated 16.04.2016, directing the Petitioner to comply with the deficiencies if any, and further directed the Respondent - Authorities to take effective steps in the matter expeditiously, considering the fact that the Petitioner was a senior citizen. The Petitioner removed the deficiencies on 17.05.2016 by filing the necessary documents. The Application was placed before the District Honour Committee, which recommended the Petitioner’s claim for grant of the aforesaid Pension under the category of ‘Underground Freedom Fighter’. The matter was referred to the State Government by communication dated 24.05.2016 for approval. By communication dated 31.08.2016, the Petitioner was informed that, his claim for the said Pension was rejected.

3. The Petitioner filed the Writ Petition No.6972 of 2017, challenging the rejection of his claim by the State Government. The said Petition was decided by the Judgment dated 18.02.2020 and the impugned order of rejection of Petitioner’s claim came to be set aside and the State Government was directed ‘to reconsider the Petitioner’s claim appropriately viewing the case having regard to laudable object underlying bringing in the scheme and having regard to decisions which have been referred to in the order’ . It was observed in the said order that, ‘It would also be pertinent that matter would not be approached perfunctorily and hyper technically’.The State Government had thereafter reconsidered the Petitioner’s claim and by the impugned communication dated 29.06.2020 maintained its earlier decision of rejection of Petitioner’s claim for the aforesaid Pension. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that, the State Government rejected the Petitioner’s claim without considering the observations of this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The State Government’s decision was the result of non Application of mind to the genuine claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had proved his eligibility and entitlement criteria prescribed under the said G.R. The Petitioner had submitted the relevant documents, such as, the Affidavits of himself and the other Pensioner Freedom Fighters, Certificates of Police Patil and Senior Citizens of his village, in support of his claim. The Clause Nos. 3 and 4 of the said G.R., under the caption ‘Underground Freedom Fighter’ were optional. The District Honour Committee recommended the Petitioner’s claim for the said Pension. The rejection of the Petitioner’s claim by the impugned order was in the teeth of decision of thi