RAGHUNATH GAJANAN WAINGANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and finally disposed of as the petitioner who claims to be a freedom fighter aged 77 years.

(2.) THE petitioner appears to have taken part in the Liberation Movement of Goa. From the averments in the petition, it appears that he had taken part in the movement in the year 1959 and on 15/08/1955 the petitioner along with others entered the geographical limits of Goa which was under the Portuguese rule. During the course of satyagraha the petitioner and others were assaulted by the then Government and that the petitioner was also injured with a bullet in his left shoulder. The petitioner has also averred that one Dr. Watve then treated him and the petitioner was discharged after recovering from the injuries. The petitioner claims that the scar of the bullet wound is still found on his left shoulder. The petitioner further states that he used to give lectures in various meetings in Mumbai and in Kokan in support of the Goa Liberation Movement. The petitioner has given several names of the satyagrahis who had taken part in the Liberation movement. He has also stated that he was felicitated by the felicitation committee for freedom fighters and that his case was recommended for freedom fighters' pension. It further appears that he had submitted several documents to substantiate his claim that he was one of the freedom fighters in the Liberation Movement of Goa. According to the petitioner he had submitted an application for freedom fighters' pension on 22/06/1998 in the prescribed form along with required documents. It appears that he had pursued the claim with the Competent Authority but was not successful. It further appears that he had already one round of litigation before this court when he filed Writ Petition No. 1636 of 2003. The Division Bench of this Court directed the State Government to consider the detailed representation made by the petitioner on 22/06/1998. It further appears that the petitioner had submitted a large number of documents in support of his case. It further appears that his application along with the documents were placed before the Mumbai Upanagar Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Bandra. The said samiti, consists of five freedom fighters. From the minutes of the meeting held on 27th August, 2002 in the office of the Collector, it is crystal clear that the Committee had unanimously decided and had recommended on the basis of the material on record to recommend freedom fighters' pension to be paid to the petitioner. The report dated 30th August, 2002 is produced along with this petition. The petitioner was informed by a communication dated 5th July, 2003 that the recommendations of the Samiti were forwarded to the Desk Officer, G. A. D. and that if the Government accepts the said recommendation, the petitioner would be informed accordingly. It further appears that by a subsequent communication dated 23rd July, 2003 the said Desk Officer of the State Government informed the petitioner that the case of the petitioner was again considered and that since the criteria prescribed on 4/07/1995 were not satisfied by the petitioner, his claim for pension was not accepted. The petitioner is before us once again to challenge the said order of the Desk Officer refusing to grant freedom fighters' pension to him.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides. We have carefully gone through the proceedings. We are rather shocked to read the impugned order passed by the Desk Officer of the State Government that the petitioner had not complied with the criteria prescribed for the freedom fighters' pension. According to us, the Desk Officer of the State Government had no power to sit in appeal over the unanimous decision of the Mumbai upanagar Zilla Gaurav Samiti which had unanimously recommended the case of the petitioner after scrutinising the material before it, that the petitioner had participated in the freedom struggle of Goa. The Committee has accepted the case of the petitioner in toto and has further observed that the petitioner had substantiated his case from the circumstantial evidence that he had participated in the Goa Liberation Movement. The Committee has narrated in detail the material which was placed before it by the petitioner in support of his case. According to us it was, therefore, not open for the Desk Officer to sit in appeal or revision on the unanimous decision of the Committee. Even on the question of criteria, we are satisfied that the petitioner has satisfied the required conditions to get the pension under the scheme. According to us, there is preponderance of material in support of the petitioner. The Committee has also considered the whole material and has unanimously recommended the case of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Desk Officer dated 23rd July, 2003 is totally illegal, improper and without jurisdiction. The Desk Officer should have simply accepted the unanimous recommendation of the Committee and ought to have sanctioned pension to the petitioner.