KU. DHANESHWARI THAKUR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's father Late Thakur Ghanshyam Singh claimed Freedom Fighter Pension for having participated in the freedom fighter movement particularly in the movement of 1942 and Quit India Movement. He was duly recognised as Freedom Fighter by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 2.2.1998; and late Thakur Ghanshyam Singh was granted pension of Rs. 1,250.00 per month. He submitted declaration form, in which petitioner's name was also included as his dependent in the statutory proforma submitted to the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) Unfortunately, petitioner's father expired on 24.06.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is unmarried daughter of Late Thakur Ghanshyam Singh and who is covered under the definition of Rule 2(A) of the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (henceforth 'Rules, 1972'), has made an application for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension and other benefits under the Rules. The said application was enquired by the Competent Authority through Collector, Raipur and on 15.10.1999 a report was sent by the Collector, Raipur to the State Government holding her to be dependent daughter of the deceased Freedom Fighter, but the State Government did not take any decision on the report submitted by the Collector, Raipur.

(3.) The petitioner preferred writ petition there-against. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1704/2005 filed by the petitioner, the State Government has passed order on 23.08.2005 holding that though the petitioner's father was granted Freedom Fighter Pension but in view of second proviso to Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1972, the petitioner is not entitled for Freedom Fighter Pension.