UMABEN I RAVAL Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms Suman Khare waives service of Rule for respondent No.1. Ms Falguni Patel, Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2. At the request of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The petitioner is constrained to file this petition since her longstanding request to permit her to avail the benefit of Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme has not been responded to positively by the respondent. The petitioner is an unfortunate lady who has been deprived of her legitimate right to have pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme floated by the Government of India. She is aged about 85 years now. It is her say that in or around the year 1942 she had been actively participating in the freedom movement and in the course of the same, she had to go underground to evade the arrest. In support of her say, she has produced the relevant certificates issued by the persons with whom she had taken part in the freedom movement. These certificates are forming part of the record of this petition. It is her say that in view of the aforesaid fact, she has been trying to avail the benefit extended to the freedom fighters by the Union Government by way of the aforesaid scheme, but has failed as no heed has been paid to her request. It is her say that her claim to receive pension is denied on technical grounds.

(3.) I have heard Mr Mahendra Patel for the petitioner and Ms Suman Khare for respondent No.1 and Ms Falguni Patel, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2. I have also carefully perused the record of this petition. The respondents have contested this petition by filing the counter affidavits. It is the say of respondent No.1 that the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite criteria for entitling her to receive the pension nor did she comply with the necessary formalities to enable the respondents to ascertain the genuineness of her claim. It is submitted by Mr Patel that despite complying with all the necessary formalities the claim of the petitioner is not being considered on one pretext or the other by respondent No.1. It is the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner had actively participated in the Freedom Movement which is evident from the certificates produced by her in this petition and also certain other documentary evidence including the photographs. It is his submission that when it is adequately proved by the petitioner that she was taking part in the freedom movement and to save herself from the arrest she had to remain underground for considerable time she becomes entitled to receive pension and her claim was completely ignored by the respondents.