Partly allowed

Laxman Gyanba Alure v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2013WP/6255/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding rejection of freedom fighter pension, the High Court distinguished a prior order as non-precedent. It held the District Committee decision is final but granted the petitioner one month to approach specific authorities cited in the policy circular under exceptional circumstances, disposing of the matter in part.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted one month to make representation to authorities under paragraph (D) of the circular; matters on merits left open.

Laxman Gyanba Alure Vs the State of Mah and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

 WP 6255/12

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.6255/2012

¶6

Laxman Gyanba Alure.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri S.S. Pawar, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent nos.1, 4 & 5.
Shri Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶13

 .....

¶14

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

¶15

DATE: 21.09.2013

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

1]Heard learned Advocate for petitioner, learned AGP
for respondent nos.1,4 & 5 and learned Advocate for
respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶18

2]Shri Pawar for petitioner submits that though the

¶19

request of petitioner for sanctioning pension as a
freedom fighter has been rejected by District Honour

¶20

 WP 6255/12

¶21

- 2 -

¶22

Committee at the level of Collector itself, said
rejection is not final and it is only a State level
committee which can take the final decision. He is
relying upon the orders of this Court dated 9.11.2011 in
Writ Petition No.5923/2011 as also the policy decision
dated 23.5.2000 for said purpose.

¶23

3]Advocate Shri Kulkarni submits that a per policy
decision, only those proposals which are recommended by
District Honour Committee are to be forwarded for further
consideration to State level committee. The proposals
rejected by District Honour Committee need not be placed
before State level committee. Advocate Shri Pawar has
invited our attention to a provision appearing in sub-
paragraph of paragraph (D) which permits High Power
Committee or Hon'ble Chief Minister or State Minister to
interfere even after rejection of proposal at District
level.

¶24

4]After hearing respective counsel, we find that the
order dated 9.11.2011 in Writ Petition No.5923/2011 does
not lay down any law and does not interpret the circular
dated 23.5.2000. That order, therefore, is not a
precedent.

¶25

 WP 6255/12

¶26

5]The circular dated 23.5.2000 in its sub-paragraph of
paragraph (D) specifically stipulates that District
Honour Committee is competent to take final decision at a
District level. Only proposals recommended positively by
said committee are to be sent to State Government for
further processing. Thus, there are two filters or
scrutinies first at District level and thereafter at
State level.

¶27

6]However, sub-paragraph of this paragraph (D) enables
Hon'ble Chief Minister or State Minister or some other
authorities mentioned therein to review the decision of
District Honour Committee in exceptional circumstances.

¶28

What are those exceptional circumstances is not
stipulated and it is also not necessary for this Court to
determine the same at this juncture. Admittedly,
petitioner before us has not made any representation to
those authorities pointing out such exceptional
circumstances.

¶29

7]We, therefore, do not find anything wrong at this

¶30

stage with impugned orders. However, we grant petitioner
an opportunity and he is free to make appropriate
representation to authorities mentioned in sub-paragraph

¶31

 WP 6255/12

¶32

in paragraph (D) within a period of one month from today.

¶33

If he makes appropriate representation and those
authorities are satisfied that a case for interference is

¶34

made out, it will be open to said authorities to take
appropriate view of the matter. The representation made
by petitioner shall be disposed of in accordance with law
within further period of four months after its receipt as
petitioner is presently about 87 years old.

¶35

8]With these directions and leaving all other

¶36

contentions on merits open, we partly allow the petition
and dispose of the same. No costs.

¶37

ndk/c219134

Laxman Gyanba Alure v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Gyanba Alure 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Gangadhar Mergewad Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Gram-Panchayat, Satala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Guru Ganesh Jain Shikshan Samiti and Another Vs Union of India and Others

Bhagwanrao Kalyanrao Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sant Pundlik Shikshan Mandal Pratishthan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shrishbai Malhari Sonkamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others