Writ petition filed for freedom fighter pension refusal. Court applied Supreme Court guidelines on probability of evidence but rejected petition as petitioner failed to meet specific documentary conditions of the 1995 Government Resolution. Dismissed under Art 226.
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.
wp7348.11
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7348 OF 2011
Onkar Prasad Laxmi Prasad Tandon ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents
Mr. Rahul G. Joshi, advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, advocate for respondent No.2
CORAM : R. M. BORDE AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ. DATED : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2014
P.C. :-
thereof he presented two affidavits of the freedom fighters, who on
wp7348.11 -2-
account of their contribution to freedom movement are held eligible to receive pension.
wp7348.11
-3-
However, this Court has also observed that there may be cases where because of long lapse of time or other circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, it is almost impossible or cumbersome to procure and produce all the stipulated documents. In such cases, the claim cannot be summarily rejected for want of documents, even though as per the Pension Scheme, such documents are to be provided. We are of the opinion that to meet such eventualities, following principle needs to be added:
wp7348.11
genuine case and the documents produced establish that the applicant had participated in the freedom movement. It should be done applying the principle of probability. If the material/documents produced are otherwise convincing, the Government in appropriate cases may not insist on strict compliance with all the requirements stated in the Scheme.”
( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )
rlj/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the State Government's rejection of the petitioner's freedom fighter pension claim for non-compliance with documentary requirements.
Whether the petitioner satisfies the eligibility conditions under the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 regarding participation in the freedom movement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra and others vs. NamdeoRelied on¶14
State of Maharashtra and others vs. Namdeo etc. (Civil Appeal No. 7899-7901 of 2013)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Onkar Prasad Laxmi Prasad Tandon
The State of Maharashtra
R. M. BORDE
V. K. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
