SHARADABAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is before this Court assailing the order dated 08.12.2008 only insofar as the date which has been fixed for sanction/commencement of pension as 08.12.2008 under Swatantra Sainika Sanmana Scheme, 1980 instead of the date of application.

(2.) THE petitioner had made an application seeking grant of freedom fighter's pension on account of participation of her late husband Ambanna Gogi. The husband of the petitioner had also made an application during his lifetime. Since the application of the petitioner had not been considered, petitioner was forced to approach this Court in the earlier proceedings. At the first instance, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 22.11.2005 in W.A. No. 3385/2005 had directed consideration of the case of the petitioner. Since consideration thereupon was not made in accordance with law, petitioner was once again before this Court in W.P. No. 3944/2007. This Court while disposing of the petition on 03.01.2008 had taken note of the circumstances under which the claim was being made by the petitioner and even though at an earlier instance, the respondents had arrived at the conclusion that the relevant documents had not been produced by the petitioner, this Court had taken into consideration the entries made in the book published by the State Government "who is who" and since the name of the husband of the petitioner was indicated therein, to state that he had undergone imprisonment for a period of six months at Central Prison, Hyderabad, a direction was issued by this Court to consider the application of the petitioner.

(3.) IN the light of the contentions which are urged on behalf of the petitioner, perusal of the order would disclose that the decision to grant pension was taken pursuant to the order passed in W.P. No. 3944/2007. Though in the earlier instances respondents had rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the relevant documents had not been filed, this Court while disposing W.P. No. 3944/2007 had taken into consideration the name of the husband of petitioner appearing in the book published by the State Government called "who is who" and in that light had directed consideration. The details with regard to the materials relied on to indicate the name in the said books is not disclosed.