RAKHAMABAT ANNAPPA GURAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present petition is seeking a direction from this Court that the petitioner should be granted freedom fighters pension and denial thereof by the respondent by their order dated 29. 1. 2003 is illegal and therefore should be quashed and set aside. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under :-

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter because of her participation in Quit India movement in the year 1942. It is the further case of the petitioner that she was also arrested on 11. 7. 1945.

(3.) ON 15. 1. 1985, the petitioner made an application for grant of freedom fighter's pension on the ground that she has participated in the quit India Movement in the year 1942 and was arrested on 11. 7. 1945 and was released on 2. 2. 1946. On 16. 1. 1995,. a Retired Police inspector issued a certificate that on 11,7,1945 the petitioner was arrested. On 1. 5. 1995, the petitioner once again addressed another letter to district Collector, Sangli requesting him to consider her case for grant of pension under the freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. On 12. 5. 1995, a reminder was sent. Advocate Rajbhau Zarkar claiming to be a member of the Freedom Fighter association addressed a letter dated 28. 6. 1995 to the 3rd respondent namely, the Collector, Sangli to scrutinise the application of the petitioner for pension paper. On 12. 8. 995, once again a request was made by the petitioner to consider her case. On 17. 2. 1999, the State Government called upon the petitioner to provide for necessary documents to consider her case for grant of pension. On 12. 7. 2000, the petitioner submitted various documents in reply to the State government's aforesaid letter. On 8. 8. 2000, the petitioner was informed that her case is under consideration. On 24. 10. 2000, Tahasildar, Jat issued a letter to the petitioner inter alia stating therein that the Jail register for the year 1945 to 1946 was not available and accordingly request for issuance of a certificate in favour of the petitioner indicating that she was arrested during the said period cannot be granted. On 22. 3. 2601, the petitioner once again asked the respondent to sanction the pension as according to the petitioner she has complied with all the requirements.