Kisan Narhari Sonar v. The Under Secretary, Government Of India, Delhi And Others

Writ Petition No.10845/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10845 OF 2014 Kisan s/o Narhari Sonar ...

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The Under Secretary to the Government of India & others ...

RESPONDENTS .....

Shri S.D. Dhongade, Advocate for petitioner Shri Amol Sawant, Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.2 Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondents No.3 .....

CORAM:

R.M. BORDE & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

DATED:

2nd December, 2015.

ORAL ORDER :

1.

The petitioner is praying for grant of Central Government Freedom Fighters' Pension. On perusal of the record, it transpired that the petitioner has suffered imprisonment for less than three months. The petitioner was lodged in Gulbarga Prison and it has been certified that he has undergone imprisonment for a duration less than three months. The Scheme formulated by the Central Government prescribed the eligibility criteria for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension as sufferance of imprisonment for a period of six months and above.

Writ Petition No.10845/2014 Admittedly the petitioner has suffered less than three months imprisonment and as such, he does not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Central Government Scheme. 2.

The petitioner contends that, in identical situation, three freedom fighters namely (1) Indrabai w/o Late Chintaman Teke, R/o Jeet, Taluka Bhoom, District Osmanabad; (2) Limba Ganpati Bhosale, R/o Jeet, Taluka Bhoom, District Osmanabad and (3) Namdeo s/o Bhim Rao Bhosle, R/o Jeet, Taluka Bhoom, District Osmanabad have been granted pension under the Central Government Scheme. It is contended that, these freedom fighters suffered imprisonment less than six months and yet, have been held eligible for receiving Central Government Freedom Fighters' Pension. If that be so, it would be open for the Union Government to re-examine the aforesaid cases and take appropriate decision.

3.

Writ Petition deserves no consideration. It stands rejected.

(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.) fmp/wp10845.14