STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAGHUNATH GAJANAN WAINGANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -State of Maharashtra, its authorities and Freedom Fighters High Power Committee, the appellants before us are aggrieved by the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai allowing a writ petition filed by the sole respondent herein and directing the appellants to sanction the freedom fighters pension to the respondent and pay him all the arrears.

(2.) Respondent claims himself to be a freedom fighter entitled to such recognition and release of pension and other privileges as per Government Resolution No. POS-1093/C No. 127/FFS/Desk Mantralaya, Mumbai dated the 4th July, 1995 which in its turn refers to 6 other Government Resolutions spread over a period between 10th August, 1970 and 5th September, 1992, the particulars whereof are not necessary for our purpose. According to the respondent, he had participated in Goa Liberation Movement and therein he had sustained bullet injuries on the left shoulder. It seems that primary evidence substantiating the respondents claim is not available and, therefore, he relied on a certificate from the Goa Vimochan Samiti and certain cuttings of newspaper reports. The respondents claim was rejected by the State Government. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai which by its order dated 11th July, 2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 1636/2002 issued certain directions calling for reconsideration of the respondents case. Once again, the respondents case has been rejected on 23rd July, 2003 by the State Government forming an opinion that the criteria laid down vide Government Resolution dated 4th July, 1995 was not satisfied in the case of the respondent and, therefore, Goa Freedom Fighters Pension could not be allowed to him.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the State Government, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court. Vide its impugned order, the High Court, placing reliance on the cases of Mukund Lal Bhandari vs. Union of India and others (1993) 3 Suppl. SCC 2 and Gurdial Singh vs. Union of India and others (2001) 8 SCC 8, has held that by adopting a liberal approach the entitlement of the respondent to the sanction of the freedom fighters pension should have been upheld. Writ of mandamus has, accordingly, been issued.