GANGA BAI Vs. NION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents for grant of freedom fighters pension to the petitioner under the "Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972" renamed as "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980" (hereinafter called the Scheme).

(2.) The husband of the petitioner, late Shri Wamanrao Ramrao Deshmukh, according to the petitioner took part in the Hyderabad Literature Struggle as a freedom fighter and was arrested under the Hyderabad Defence Act under Section 33./37.34/37of Nizam Government, and was admitted to Nanded Jail on 30.1.1957 Fasli. It is stated in the writ petition that the husband of the petitioner suffered imprisonment for a period of 5 months and I day inasmuch as he was put to Nanded Jail and was lodged therein from30.1.1357 to 13.6.1357 Fasli and also that he remained under-ground activist upto 1.5.1358 Fasli and in this manner the total period comes to more than 6 months. The petitioner states that in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972, the petitioner being the widow of late Shri Wamanrao Ramrao Deshmukh is entitled to grant of such pension having fulfilled the eligibility condition of having undergone imprison- ment coupled with remaining underground activists for a period of more than 6 months. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for grant of the said freedom fighters pension in the year 1984 and as no response was received from the respondents a detailed representation alongwith all the documents and copy of the earlier representation was sent once again to the respondents near about 26.8.1993 which was received by the respondent authorities on 26.8.1993. Even after receipt of the same the respondents have not sanctioned the freedom fighters pension in favour of the petitioner and hence this writ petition.

(3.) The respondents have contested the present writ petition by filing a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the Jail certificate produced by the petitioner shows imprisonment for 5 months only and that there is no mention of the period of sentence/conviction and in that view of the matter, according to the respondents the petitioner is not entitled to claim for and /or grant of the aforesaid pension.