Disposed

Nagan @ Narayan Manik Gavandi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Sept 2018WP/11846/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a freedom fighter pension recommendation granted by a High Power Committee that was later rejected by the Ministry on technical grounds. The Court noted the petitioner failed to provide evidence regarding the claim in paragraph 1 of the relevant Government Resolution, dismissing the petition as no further evidence was available.

What did the court decide?

Claim cannot be considered; Writ Petition disposed of.

Nagan @ Narayan Manik Gavandi Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1)

¶2

2-wp-11846-2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

2 WRIT PETITION NO. 11846 OF 2014

¶5

NAGAN @ NARAYAN MANIK GAVANDI

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. Suryakant S. Pawar, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent
No.4.

¶11

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
 S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶12

 DATED : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2018.

¶13

PER COURT:-

¶14

1.Mr. Pawar, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that Zilla Gaurav Samiti had
recommended the claim of the petitioner for grant
of freedom fighter pension. The matter was also
placed before the High Power Committee. In fact,
the High Power Committee had granted the freedom
fighter pension to the petitioner, but then the
Ministry had changed and matter was again placed
before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, it was rejected.
The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has
satisfied all the requirements. Only one
requirement was not satisfied according to the
respondents that is the petitioner required to

¶15

(2) 2-wp-11846-2014

¶16

leave house or education or disability had
occasioned because of the participation in the
freedom fighter movement. The learned counsel
submits that the Chairman of the High Power
Committee had asked the questions to the
petitioner. The petitioner replied and stated that
he had to leave his education, the same has not
been considered by the Authorities. The learned
counsel submits that the petitioner had submitted
the affidavits of two freedom fighters who had
undergone imprisonment and Zilla Gaurav Samiti had
also recommended the claim of the petitioner, but
only on the technical ground the same is rejected.

¶17

2.The learned A.G.P. supports the order.

¶18

observed thus:

¶19

“1.After hearing the arguments, it is
observed that the petitioner does not
fulfill requirements laid down in
paragraph no.1 of Government Resolution
dated 31.08.1995. Although the petitioner
has stated in the affidavit tendered with
the application that as a result of his
participation in freedom movement, he was
required to leave education, there is
absolutely no evidence produced in that
regard.

¶20

2.Counsel appearing for the petitioner
seeks time for presenting evidence, if
available. With a view to extend on more
opportunity to the petitioner, the writ
petition stands adjourned for two weeks,
to be listed in urgent category.”

¶21

(3) 2-wp-11846-2014

¶22

4.We had asked Mr. Pawar, learned counsel
for the petitioner as to whether he has some
additional evidence available. This Court had
already opined on 5th January 2015 that the
petitioner does not fulfill requirements laid
down in paragraph 1 on the Government Resolution
dated 31.08.1995 and the matter was adjourned so
as to enable the petitioner to present any
additional evidence, if available. Mr. Pawar,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the additional evidence now is not available.

¶23

5.In view of the above and the order
dated 5th January 2015 of this Court, the
petitioner's claim cannot be considered.

¶24

6.Writ Petition as such is disposed of.

¶25

No costs.

¶26

(S. M. GAVHANE) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

Devendra/September-18

¶28

Devendra Nandkumar Kale

¶29

Digitally signed by Devendra Nandkumar Kale Date: 2018.09.24 11:26:07 +0530

Nagan @ Narayan Manik Gavandi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagan @ Narayan Manik Gavandi v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Yuvraj Atmaram Pathakrao Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ankush Ramchandra Chame Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashabai Balasaheb Bhore Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sampat Mugajirao Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prashant Nagnathrao Paldewar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kiran Bhausaheb Tapale Vs Nitin Karir and Another