Dismissed

Smt. Sharada Vyankob Lokare, through Arun Vyankob Lokare v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, General Administration Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2013WP/2064/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a widow seeking pension for her deceased husband under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. The court rejected the petition as the Onus was on the applicant to provide evidence of participation, noting the lack of police records or corroboration beyond two affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no order as to costs. Direction to investigate certification of two other pensioners based on MLA certificates.

Smt. Sharada Vyankob Lokare, through Arun… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

wp2064.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2064 OF 2012

¶7

Smt.Sharada Vyankaba Lokare )....Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. )...Respondents

¶8

Mr.V.V.Pai for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Vagyani AGP for the respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : V.M.KANADE & K.R.SHRIRAM,JJ

¶10

RESERVED ON : 3^rd July, 2013. PRONOUNCED ON : 15^th July, 2013.

¶11

P.C. ( Per : K.R.Shriram,J) :-

¶12

1 The petition has been filed in the writ jurisdiction under Articles- 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying for Freedom Fighters' Pension and all benefits in view thereof under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme 1972 and the scheme framed by the State of Maharashtra for grant of pension to Freedom Fighters and their dependents.

¶13

2 The facts in brief are as under :-

¶14

The petitioner is the widow of one Shri Vyankaba Chimaji

¶15

Lokare who allegedly was a Freedom Fighter and is alleged to have participated in the Freedom struggle and the movement of the country during the Independence movement along with several others. It is therefore, claimed by the petitioner that the petitioner's

¶16

2 wp2064.12

¶17

husband was eligible and entitled for getting benefits under the Swatantraya Sanman Pension Scheme of the Central Government and extended by the State Government. The petitioner's husband had applied to the competent authority for grant of pension under the said scheme in the year 1994 and in support of the contentions, the husband of the petitioner who has since died gave affidavit of two other persons who according to the petitioner's husband had actively associated with the petitioner's husband and participated in the Freedom Struggle and Movement. It is also stated that the Uncle of the petitioner's husband who had also participated in the Freedom Struggle along with the petitioner's husband has been issued the `Sanman Patra' by the Government and/or the competent authority. After the demise of the husband, the petitioner has been pursuing the claim for getting pension under the scheme but the same has been denied to the petitioner.

¶18

3 With this background, the petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of Mandamus or a writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondents to forthwith allow the application of the petitioner in continuation of the application made by her deceased husband for Freedom Fighters Pension and extend all benefits in view thereof.

¶19

3 wp2064.12

¶20

4 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's husband had remained under-ground during the Freedom struggle as the British police were always looking for the persons who propagated for freedom struggle, taking out processions, distributing bulletins, wall posters, giving slogans against the British Rule, hoisting the Tri Colour flag on the Government buildings etc. It is also stated that the petitioner's deceased husband in his application has stated that he was also put in the lock-up by the Dongri police station and subsequently released for want of evidence after pro-long imprisonment. It seems that he was again re-arrested and taken to Bhoiwada lock-up and sent to jail at BDD Chawl No.17. However, the petitioner's husband has not been able to furnish any evidence to support his contentions save affidavits of one Vasu Desai and one Laxman Murari Jadhav. It is necessary to note that the first time the petitioner's husband ever applied for the pension was in January1994 about five months before his demise. Even the Uncle of the petitioner who is alleged to have participated in the Freedom Fighter struggle and who has received the pension benefits had applied way back in 1966. No explanation came forth as to why the petitioner's deceased husband did not apply along with his Uncle.

¶21

5 In reply, the Counsel on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 3

¶22

4 wp2064.12

¶23

submitted that the petitioner's late husband had not submitted the required documents in support of his say as required under the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. The application was also placed before the Committee of Mumbai District Freedom Fighters Gaurav Samiti in the meeting held on 24.3.1994 and the application was set aside as per the Resolution passed in the meeting on the ground that the application was without sufficient proof and the petitioner's husband was informed by respondent no.3 vide letter dated 31.3.1994 that his request has been turned down by the Committee members. Even when the petitioner re-applied in June1995, the respondent no.3 informed the petitioner that unless documents in support of the application as required under the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 were submitted, her application cannot be considered. The Government had also vide its letter dated 5.2.2000 directed the respondent no.3 to comply with the papers as per the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and submit the proposal of the petitioner with recommendation of District Gaurav Samiti and Collector, Mumbai City, but the application could not be placed before the Committee because the petitioner did not submit proof along with her application. In fact, the respondent no.3 even wrote to Dongri police station, Worli police station and Bhoiwada police station and Registrar of Killa Court (Esplanade Court) to verify the claim of the petitioner and provide any documents of proof of the

¶24

wp2064.12

¶25

¶26

petitioner's husband and his details as Freedom Fighter. The police informed the respondent no.3 that they did not have any record or proof of the petitioner's husband being ever involved in Freedom movement and in fact, the Superintendent of Mumbai Central Prison had informed the respondent no.3 that as per the record, the name of the petitioner's husband was not found while checking the record of the office (Daptar Tapasni) and the old registers of the Worli Prison are in bad state and unreadable. Similar letter was also written by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-III, Mumbai. According to the respondent nos.1 & 3 as the petitioner did not fulfill the terms of the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995, the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs prayed for.

¶27

6 We have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties. Though Mr.Pai argued that the responsibility is on the State to prove, we are not inclined to accept the arguments of the petitioner's Counsel. On the contrary the respondent nos.1 to 3 have filed alongwith their affidavit in reply letters to confirm that the petitioner's husband's name as a freedom fighter is not found anywhere. In our opinion, when a person is applying for pension, the onus is on the applicant to provide some evidence that show that the applicant is entitled to pension. Moreover, the petitioner's Uncle got his certificate in 1966 but he has not certified that his nephew had

¶28

wp2064.12

¶29

¶30

participated in the struggle. Also the jail authorities did not find his name in their record. Neither the petitioner's husband earlier, nor the petitioner has provided any documents to support the claim save the affidavits of one Vasu Desai and one Laxman Murari Jadhav, both of whom claimed to have participated along with the petitioner's husband in the Freedom struggle and the said two persons have certified that the petitioner's husband had participated in the Freedom struggle. This Court had by an order dated 14.12.2012 directed the respondents to produce the file in respect of the said Vasu Desai and Laxman Jadhav whose affidavits are at Exhibit-B (collectively) to the petition and who have been granted the Freedom Fighters pension. The file was produced relating to the said two persons before the Court. On perusing the documents relating to the said two persons, we find that one of them has been certified as a Freedom Fighter by an M.L.A. We are rather surprised and wonder how could a person be declared to be entitled for Freedom Fighters Pension and given pension on a certificate from an M.L.A.

¶31

7 We are not satisfied with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and are therefore, not inclined to admit the petition. The petition stands rejected with no order as to costs.

¶32

7 wp2064.12

¶33

8 At the same time, we hereby direct the concerned

¶34

authority to investigate as to how the said Mr.Vasu Desai and Mr.Laxman Jadhav have been declared to be entitled to pension and whether the documents submitted by them are sufficient for them to draw pension.

¶35

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J) (V.M.KANADE,J)

Smt. Sharada Vyankob Lokare, through Arun Vyankob Lokare v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, General Administration Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sharada Vyankob Lokare, through Arun Vyankob Lokare v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, General Administration Dept and Ors.

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

Farooque Yasin Sayyad Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Minority Development Dept and Ors.

Shankar Digambar Poul Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Namdar, the Chief Minister, Maharashtra

Sau. Ratna Anil Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Mudassir N. Lambe Vs the Collector, Election Dept, Maharashtra State Board of Waks and Ors.

Mr. Vasant Jog Vs Mr. Nitin Sheth and Ors.

Pralhad Harishchandra Thakur and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.