Quashed

Kewalabai Mariba Gaikwad v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Sept 2013WP/1974/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed an order denying freedom fighter pension to the petitioner's husband. The Court held the reasoning unsustainable as the original FIR was accepted for six other pensioners. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded for fresh consideration within four months.

Kewalabai Mariba Gaikwad Vs the State of Mah… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

 WP 1974/12

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.1974/2012

¶6

Kewalabai Mariba Gaikwad.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri S.K. Adkine, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent nos.1,3 & 4.
Shri Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
 RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶15

DATE: 19.09.2013

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

1] Heard.

¶18

2]Widow of a freedom fighter is before this Court

¶19

questioning the order dated 25.7.2003 denying pension to

¶20

her husband on the ground that original FIR is not
available and as per report of the Collector, Parbhani,
authenticity of that FIR cannot be ascertained.

¶21

 WP 1974/12

¶22

- 2 -

¶23

3]Advocate Shri S.K. Adkine for petitioner submits
that first six persons named in that FIR are already
granted the freedom fighter's pension and name of husband
of petitioner appears as a last person i.e. at Sr.No.7
therein. He contends that thus reason given is
unsustainable and arbitrary.

¶24

4]Advocate Shri Bhushan Kulkarni for respondent no.2
contends that though case of petitioner's husband was
recommended by District Honor Committee, as it was not
accompanied by affidavits of two veteran freedom
fighters, same could not be considered and allowed. He,
therefore, prays for dismissal of writ petition.

¶25

5]We have perused the impugned order dated 25.7.2003.

¶26

The order in its first three paragraphs reproduces the
ingredients of the Government resolution dated 4.7.1995.
Deceased Mariba had claimed pension as an underground

¶27

freedom fighter. The reason recorded is, if any

¶28

documents in proof of said claim were available, the same
were not produced. No newspaper cutting about fact of

¶29

being underground was supplied and lastly it has been
mentioned that original FIR was not available at Kurunda
Police Station and as per verification report of

¶30

 WP 1974/12

¶31

- 3 -

¶32

Collector, Parbhani, genuineness of FIR cannot be
verified.

¶33

6]If very same FIR has been used by respondents to
award pension to persons whose names appear at Sr.Nos.1
to 6 therein, we fail to understand how it can be denied
to a person whose name appears at Sr.No.7. No doubt it

¶34

is last name in that FIR, but it is not the case of
respondents that in the copies of FIR already with them
and supplied by above mentioned six persons or any other
person, name of Mariba did not figure. In other words,
respondents have not rejected pension on the ground that
said document of FIR is interpolated.

¶35

7]Shri Adkine has shown that pension has been

¶36

sanctioned to Vithal Gangaram Kurande on 17.4.1997.
Hence, the State Government has already considered that
FIR.

¶37

8]In this situation, we find the impugned order

¶38

unsustainable. The same is accordingly quashed and set
aside. The matter be placed before respondent no.1 for

¶39

its fresh consideration in accordance with law at the

¶40

earliest. The petitioner - widow is aged about 73
years. Hence, such fresh verification and consideration

¶41

 WP 1974/12

¶42

- 4 -

¶43

shall be completed within a period of four months from
today.
9]Writ petition is thus partly allowed and disposed
of. No costs.

¶44

 (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶45

ndk/c19913

Kewalabai Mariba Gaikwad v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kewalabai Mariba Gaikwad v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sureash Satramdas Bhateja and Others Vs Bhumesh Tarachand Sonar and Others

The Village Panchayat, Kaudgaon Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manoj Maganlal Ghodke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajay Deepak Hiwrale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Aurangabad Zilla Majdoor Kamgar Sahakari Sansthecha Sangh Limited and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Muktabai Namdeo Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others