Petitioner sought freedom fighter’s pension claiming 1948 participation. Court found implausible that a 71-year-old was involved in 1948 at age 10. Claim deemed unacceptable and petition devoid of substance.
Prayer for grant of freedom fighter’s pension dismissed; petition rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
{1}
wp331010.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3310 OF 2010
Shivaji s/o Rama Jamge
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr. M.P.Kale, advocate holding for Mr.R.T.Deshmukh, advocate for petitioner
Mr. V.H.Dighe, A.G.P. for respondents.
CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND
R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 16th December, 2010
PER COURT:
1 Instant petition is presented seeking a direction to the respondents for grant of freedom fighter’s pension.
2 Petitioner claims to have participated during Hyderabad freedom movement. Petitioner is stated to have participated in the said freedom movement in the year 1948. The petitioner is 71 years of age as on today. Considering this aspect, in the year 1948, when he claims to have participated in freedom movement, he could be below 10 years of age. The contentions raised in the petition are unacceptable and, as such, in the
wp331010.odt
{2}
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the directions, as prayed for by the petitioner, need not be issued. Petition is devoid of substance.
3 Hence, Writ Petition stands rejected.
R.M.BORDE JUDGE
B.R.GAVAI
JUDGE
adb/wp331010
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of freedom fighter’s pension considering the implausibility of his claimed participation in the 1948 freedom movement at age below ten.
Whether the Writ Petition presenting an unsubstantiated claim for pension should be accepted.
Whether the High Court should issue a direction for the grant of pension in peculiar facts where the petitioner’s claim is unacceptable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shivaji s/o Rama Jamge
The State of Maharashtra
B.R.GAVAI
R.M.BORDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
