Allowed

Santram Dajiba Thakur. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Bombay HC22 Jul 2009WP/1073/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court at Aurangabad directed respondents to decide a pending application for Freedom Fighter's pension for the deceased petitioner within four weeks and communicate the decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide the application for Freedom Fighter's pension within four weeks and communicate the decision.

Santram Dajiba Thakur. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1073 OF 1994

¶5

Santram s/o Dajiba Thakur,
Age : 73 years, Occu.Nil,
R/o Opp. Indraprastha Hotel,
Main Road, Latur, Dist. Latur
(deceased), through his L.Rs.

¶6

1) Rajaram Santram Thakur, Age : 34 years, Occ.Service, R/o Latur,Dist. Latur

¶7

2) Smt. Gangabai Santram Thakur, Age : 65 years, Occ. H.H., R/o Latur

¶8

3) Smt. Pamanbai Santram Thakur, Age : 55 years, Occ. H.H., R/o Latur

¶9

4) Shakuntalabai w/o Gajananrao Lokhande, Age : 37 years, Occ. Household, R/o Karkhed, Tq. Omerkhed

¶10

5) Sow. Chanda Kalyanrao Gaikwad, Age : 36 years, Occ. H.H., R/o Beed, Dist. Beed

¶11

6) Sow. Mayavati w/o Sunilkumar Bhosale, Age : 31 years, Occ. H.H., R/o Bhat Limbgaon, Tq. Indapur

¶12

7) Sow. Chaya w/o Prakashrao Ahire, Age : 29 years, Occ. H.H., R/o Malegaon, Dist. Nashik

¶13

¶14

`8)`	`Sow. Lalita w/o Janardhan Shankpal,`
	`Age : 30 years, Occ. Household,` `R/o Chikalthana, Dist. Aurangabad`
`9)`	`Sow. Anita Arjunrao Chauhan,` `Age : 28 years, Occ. Household,` `R/o Parewadi, Tq. Paranda,`
`10)`	`Sunita w/o Motilal Ahire,` `Age : 26 years, Occ. Household,` `R/o Malegaon, Dist. Nashik` `..PETITIONERS`
	`VERSUS`
`1.`	`The State of Maharashtra,`
`2.`	`Minister for General` `Administration, Maharashtra,` `Mantralaya, Bombay`
`3.`	`Shri Tulsidas Jadhav,` `President of High Power` `Committee (Freedom Fighter),` `Mantralaya, Mumbai`
`4.`	`The Collector,` `Osmanabad`
`5.`	`The Collector,` `Latur` `..RESPONDENTS`

¶15

Mr Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for petitioners;
Mr K.B. Choudhary, AGP for respondent no.1.

¶16

CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND
 A.V. POTDAR, JJ.

¶17

 DATE : 22nd JULY, 2009

¶18

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.]

¶20

This is a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by which the petitioners pray
for directing the respondents to grant Freedom
Fighter’s pension to the petitioners. It appears that
the deceased petitioner who claimed to be a Freedom
Fighter submitted necessary application to the
respondents in the prescribed proforma along with
necessary documents. This application had been
submitted by the petitioner some time in the year
1993. According to the petitioners, the said
application of deceased petitioner is still pending
and has not been decided so far. Though the
respondents are served, no return has been filed by
the respondents. This petition has remained pending
since the year 1994 and, therefore, we are inclined to
allow this petition and direct the respondents to
decide the application of the petitioner, if the same
is still pending.

¶21

2.Accordingly we allow this petition and direct
respondents to decide the application of the
petitioner for Freedom Fighter’s pension within four
weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon
to the petitioner, if the application submitted by the
petitioner is still pending. In the event of the
application having been decided earlier, we direct the
respondents to communicate the decision thereon to the
petitioners.

¶22

¶23

3. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶24

[ A.V. POTDAR, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ]

¶25

Santram Dajiba Thakur. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santram Dajiba Thakur. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha Narayan Patil. Vs Block Devt.Officer,Panchayat Samiti,Jalgaon and Ors.

Sarswatibhawan Shikshan Sanstha a'Bad and Others. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Pradeep Chandaji Wanjare. Vs the State of Mah. and Others.

Miss. Sarla Gulabchand Agrawal. Vs the Principal,H.G.Tamani ,Jr.College Bhusaval andOTH

Suresh Kumar Sharma. Vs the Union of India and Others.

Al-Faruq Talimi Society Thro.President and Another. Vs Zilla Parishad Latur and Others.