Bombay High Court
Bapurao Bhagwantrao Deshpande vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 7 July, 2025
Author: R. G. Avachat
Bench: R. G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:17333-DB
1 FA6675/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.6675 OF 2020
Bapurao S/o. Bhagwantrao Deshpande
Through LR's :-
1-A) Kamalabai w/o. Bapurao Deshpande,
Age : 80 years, Occu : Nil,
R/o. Khanapur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
General Administration Department
(Freedom Fighters Section),
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. Freedom Fighter's High Power Committee,
New Administrative Building,
8th Floor, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32, through its
Member Secretary
3. The Desk Officer,
General Administration Department,
(Freedom Fighters Section),
Opposite Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
4. The Collector, Latur
District - Latur ... Respondents
.....
Shri. V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Petitioner
Shri. P. S. Patil, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 / State.
.....
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : JUNE 11, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : JULY 07, 2025
2 FA6675/2020
JUDGMENT (PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) :
. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of both the sides.
2. The Orig. Petitioner is no more and the Petition is being
pursued by his widow. The Original Petitioner, who claimed to be an
‘Underground Freedom Fighter’, applied for Freedom Fighters’ Pension
in March-2004 under the ‘Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme’
which was introduced by the State Government vide Government
Resolution dated 04.07.1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said G.R.’).
The Petitioner claimed to have participated in the Hyderabad Liberation
Movement. As no decision was taken on the said Application of the
Petitioner for a considerable time, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition
No.3601 of 2016 seeking declaration and directions. The said Petition
was decided by this Court by order dated 16.04.2016, directing the
Petitioner to comply with the deficiencies if any, and further directed the
Respondent – Authorities to take effective steps in the matter
expeditiously, considering the fact that the Petitioner was a senior
citizen. The Petitioner removed the deficiencies on 17.05.2016 by filing
the necessary documents. The Application was placed before the
District Honour Committee, which recommended the Petitioner’s claim
for grant of the aforesaid Pension under the category of ‘Underground
Freedom Fighter’. The matter was referred to the State Government by
communication dated 24.05.2016 for approval. By communication
3 FA6675/2020
dated 31.08.2016, the Petitioner was informed that, his claim for the
said Pension was rejected.
3. The Petitioner filed the Writ Petition No.6972 of 2017,
challenging the rejection of his claim by the State Government. The said
Petition was decided by the Judgment dated 18.02.2020 and the
impugned order of rejection of Petitioner’s claim came to be set aside
and the State Government was directed ‘to reconsider the Petitioner’s
claim appropriately viewing the case having regard to laudable object
underlying bringing in the scheme and having regard to decisions which
have been referred to in the order’ . It was observed in the said order
that, ‘It would also be pertinent that matter would not be
approached perfunctorily and hyper technically’. The State Government
had thereafter reconsidered the Petitioner’s claim and by the impugned
communication dated 29.06.2020 maintained its earlier decision of
rejection of Petitioner’s claim for the aforesaid Pension. Being aggrieved
by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner
that, the State Government rejected the Petitioner’s claim without
considering the observations of this Court in the earlier round of
litigation. The State Government’s decision was the result of non
Application of mind to the genuine claim of the Petitioner. The
4 FA6675/2020
Petitioner had proved his eligibility and entitlement criteria prescribed
under the said G.R. The Petitioner had submitted the relevant
documents, such as, the Affidavits of himself and the other Pensioner
Freedom Fighters, Certificates of Police Patil and Senior Citizens of his
village, in support of his claim. The Clause Nos. 3 and 4 of the said G.R.,
under the caption ‘Underground Freedom Fighter’ were optional.
The District Honour Committee recommended the Petitioner’s claim for
the said Pension. The rejection of the Petitioner’s claim by the impugned
order was in the teeth of decision of this Court dated 18.02.2020 in Writ
Petition No.6972 of 2017. The impugned order was not sustainable and
be quashed and set aside. Due to the death of the Petitioner, Widow of
the Petitioner was impleaded as Legal Heir of the Petitioner. In support
of his contentions, he relied on the following Judgments :-
(a) Mukund Lal Bhandari vs. Union of India, 1993 AIR (SC) 2127;
(b) Kishan Hanuji Jambhulkar (Dr.) vs. State of Maharashtra & others,
2004 (2) Bom. C.R. 433;
(c) Chhotubhai H. L. Patel vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1996
Gujarat 201;
(d) Gurdial Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 8;
(e) State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. vs. A. Manickam Pillai, 2010 (2) SCC 669;
(f) Kamalbai Sinkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, (Civil Appeal
No.5344 of 2012) decided on 20.07.2012;
(g) State of Maharashtra & Ors vs. Namdeo etc etc., (2013) 14 SCC 225
(h) Kishansinha s/o. Tukaramsinha Chandel vs. The State of Maharashtra
and Others in Writ Pertition No.2831 of 2000 decided on 26.07.2010;
(i) Kalidas Nivrutti Dhale vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2014 (3)
Mh.L.J. 673;
5 FA6675/2020
(j) Punjaram s/o. Madhav Indewad vs. The State of Maharashtra &
Others in Writ Petition No.2632 of 2011 dated 28.08.2013, which was
confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by dismissing SLP
No.17614/2015 on 28.09.2015;
(k) Rajabai W/o. Pandoji Kshirsagar vs. The State of Maharashtra &
Others, dated 04.02.2016;
(l) Tulshiram s/o. Eknathrao Kolhe vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Others in Writ Petition No.6730 of 2014 dated 20.03.2018.
5. It is submitted by the learned Addl. G.P. for the Respondents –
State that the State Government considered the Petitioner’s claim under
the said G.R. and found that, the Petitioner failed to place on record the
documents, showing his participation in Freedom Fighters’ Movement.
After initial decision of the Government rejecting the Petitioner’s claim,
the matter was remanded back by this Court for reconsideration,
however, the Petitioner did not supply any new document / proof and
therefore, the earlier decision of rejection of the claim was maintained.
He submitted that, no case was made out to interfere in the impugned
decision of the Government and the Petition be dismissed. He also relied
on the Judgment in State of Maharashtra & Ors vs. Namdeo etc etc.,
(2013) 14 SCC 225, which is cited by learned Advocate for the
Petitioner.
6. Heard both the sides. Perused the papers on record. The
case revolves around the said G.R., which is in respect of Freedom
Fighters Pension. There is no dispute that, the Petitioner made the
Application and the Respondent – State considered the said Application
6 FA6675/2020
under the said G.R. The Petitioner claimed the Freedom Fighters’
Pension under the head ‘Underground Freedom Fighter’. The said
category or clause of Freedom Fighter is referred in the said G.R., which
is reproduced below :
“Freedom Fighters, who worked by remaining underground in
the Quit India Movement (Bharat Chodo Andolan) during
1942-44 or in Hyderabad Liberation Movement during 1947-
48, will submit the following documents :
(1) A Certificate mentioning as to which type of difficulties
and troubles from the following was faced / undergone
during the agitation.
(a) Had to move away from home,
(b) Had to drop education or expelled from the
educational institute.
(c) Received beatings from the Police causing
disabilities(2) A Certificate to the effect that, he was punished for
minimum of two (2) years or declared and remained
absconding for a minimum of two (2) years, from
two (2) Freedom Fighters of that area along with the
document showing that the Freedom Fighter giving Certificate
was imprisoned or advertisement of declaration of absconding
or Government order. Also, the Certificate on oath of such
Freedom Fighter.
(3) The Certified copy of the Government record of the
relevant time showing “remained underground”, if available.
(4) Original copy of newspaper published at the relevant
time giving information about the Applicant having gone
underground with name, if available.
(5) Recommendation and opinion of ‘the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti’ giving specific information.”
7. In the earlier round of litigation, wherein the rejection of the
Petitioner’s claim for the said Pension was challenged in the Writ Petition
No.6972 of 2017, it was observed as follows :-
7 FA6675/2020
“9. Here, in the present case, may be, the comments by the
desk officer suspect the contents of police patil’s certificate and
affidavit by one Mr. Patil. Both, in any case, are pointer to that
petitioner had abandoned and left his place of residence as
well as education. The application had been supported by
certificate issued by an age old police patil and two affidavits
accompanied by imprisonment certificates of co-workers who
had been awarded swatantrya sainik pension. In such a case,
this hyper sensitive and suspective approach does not appear
to be compatible with the object, purpose and intention
underlying the bringing in of the scheme.
10. Besides aforesaid, petitioner’s case had also been
recommended by District Honour Committee, Latur. It appears
that application of the petitioner had been scrutinized by Desk
Officer and he had put up a note along with his comments
opining that there is no definitive proof with respect to that
the petitioner had to abandon his residence or education,
purporting to appreciate police patil’s certificate and the
affidavit filed by one of the freedom fighters namely Mr. Patil,
to be discrepant on this aspect, raising suspicion about its
veracity. The noting also refers to that there is
recommendation by District Honour Committee. With such an
approach, the desk officer had put up the matter for decision
before the high power committee.
11. Division bench in the decision, referred to above, had
further observed that it was not the case of the petitioner
therein that the government record or original papers showing
that petitioner was not underground freedom fighter were
available. In such a case, even if the petitioner has not
complied with requirements No. 3 and 4, his claim cannot be
rejected on said ground. It is further been observed that
District Honour Committee recommendation was that
petitioner was underground freedom fighter. In the present
case, there is no comment whatsoever in respect of the
recommendation by the District Honour Committee.
12. Above all, it has to be referred to that a hyper technical
pedantic approach shall be eschewed while considering claims
by freedom fighters, especially age old ones while claims are
being made when they are in dire need.
13. Going by the observations of the Supreme Court in
“Gurdial Singh V/s Union of India and Others” reported in
2001 (8) SCC 8 as well as the decisions referred to above and
having regard to that high power committee has not done its
bit and exerted itself to apply mind to the application by the
petitioner, it appears to be expedient that the State
Government shall re-consider the case of the petitioner for
8 FA6675/2020
aforesaid purpose. As such, we deem it appropriate to set aside
the impugned order in the present writ petition.
14. In view of aforesaid, impugned order is set aside. State
Government to re-consider petitioner’s case appropriately
viewing the case having regard to laudable object underlying
bringing in the scheme and having regard to decisions which
have been referred to in this order. It is reported that age of
the petitioner is eighty seven years and he frequently requires
medical attention and often hospitalization. Having regard to
the same, re-consideration of the application of the petitioner
shall be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of writ this
order. It would also be pertinent that matter would not be
approached perfunctorily and hyper technically.
15. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. Writ petition
stands disposed of. Original record, which is stated to be with
government pleader, shall be sent back forthwith to the State
government.”
8. Thereafter, the impugned Order maintaining the earlier rejection
of Petitioner’s claim towards the said Pension is passed. The impugned
Order shows that the Petitioner’s claim towards the said Pension is
rejected on the following grounds :-
(a) The Applicant has not submitted the documents / proof in
support of the requirement Nos.1, 3 and 4 of the above referred
G.R.
(b) The recommendation of the District Honour Committee ( Zilla
Gaurav Samiti) was based on the Certificates issued by the
Freedom Fighters.
(c) The participation of a person in the Freedom Movement is
necessarily to be established by the contemporary documents /
record.
9 FA6675/2020
(d) The recommendation Certificates / Affidavits of the Freedom
Fighters and the Police Patil contained vague information and not
supported by the contemporary record.
(e) The Certificate signed by the villagers was based only on their
information / memory and so, it cannot be the concrete proof.
The said Certificate do not find place in the said G.R.
(f) No new proof was submitted by the Applicant.
9. The rejection of the claim towards the said Pension on the
ground that no document / proof in support of Clause Nos. 3 and 4 of
the above referred Government Resolution, is unsustainable for the
reason that, the said Clause Nos. 3 and 4 from the said G.R., reproduced
above, clearly show that the documents referred therein were to be
submitted, only if available. The said clauses nowhere shows that, the
documents referred therein were mandatorily to be submitted. As the
Clause Nos.3 and 4 of the said G.R. do not mandate the availability of
contemporary document in respect of the remaining underground in the
nature of Government record or the newspaper, the observation that the
participation in the Freedom Movement was necessarily to be
established by the contemporary documents / record will have no
weight or force. In absence of any such mandate in said clause Nos.3
and 4, we find merit in the submission of the learned Advocate for the
Petitioner that the requirements under the said Clause Nos.3 and 4 were
optional.
10 FA6675/2020
10. As regards the rejection of the claim towards the said Pension on
the ground of not submitting the document / proof as per Clause No.1 is
concerned, admittedly the copies of the Application dated 24.03.2004
requesting for the ‘Underground Freedom Fighter Pension’; the
Application in the prescribed form; the Petitioner’s Affidavit Prapatra –
‘A’;, Certificate in Prapatra – ‘B’ issued by the Pensioner Freedom Fighter;
Affidavit dated 16.08.2004 of the Petitioner and Pensioner Freedom
Fighter Apparao Malshetti Patil and undated Affidavits of Pensioner
Freedom Fighters Devidas Kishanrao Joshi, Hanmantrao Babarao
Dhuppe along with true copies of Sanman Patra by the Hon’ble Chief
Minister, Maharashtra State, in their name were submitted to the District
Collector, Latur.
11. The Affidavit dated 16.08.2004 submitted by the Petitioner speak
of his participation in Hyderabad Liberation Movement during 1947-48,
during which period he got inspired with the speeches of the then
Freedom Fighters and cut the trees and burnt them which led to breach
of the law prevalent at that time, due to which he suffered atrocities at
the hands of police, his house was looted, which caused him loss and he
had to leave his home and remained underground. The Affidavit further
speak of taking primary training to use the arms and ammunition,
participation in the armed conflict with the Police in Tiruka and Ghonsi
villages and during that time he had to stay in the forest, hills etc. and
11 FA6675/2020
remained underground. The Affidavit further speak that, during that
period, he used to provide the secret information to Apparao Patil and
undergone sufferings. The Clause No.1 of the said G.R., reproduced
above, does not speak of requirement of any proof in respect of the
activities mentioned therein. What it requires is the Certificate to that
effect. The other Affidavits of the Pensioner Freedom Fighters,
as referred above, support the claim of the Petitioner that, he actively
participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement during 1947-48.
There is no dispute that, the said Freedom Fighters who submitted their
Affidavits in support of Petitioner’s claim were the recipient of the
Freedom Fighter’s Pension. Thus, there is no difficulty in observing that
the Condition No.1 in the said G.R., referred above, was fulfilled and the
observation that no document / proof in support of requirement of
Clause No.1 was submitted, cannot be said to be sustainable in absence
of mandate in the said G.R.
12. The Papers on record goes to show that, in the meeting dated
17.05.2016 the District Honour Committee had favourably
recommended the case of the Petitioner for grant of Freedom Fighters
Pension and by communication dated 24.05.2016 issued from the office
of District Collector, Latur under the signature of Resident Deputy
Collector, Latur the recommendation was forwarded to the Respondent –
State. The Clause No.5 of the said G.R., reproduced above, which speak
12 FA6675/2020
of recommendation from the District Honour Committee was therefore
complied. However, the said recommendation was not accepted by the
Respondent – State on the ground that the said recommendation was
based on the Certificate issued by the Freedom Fighters. The rejection
of the recommendation of the District Honour Committee as noted by
the Respondent – State in the impugned order cannot be said to be in
consonance with the aforesaid Clause No.5 of the G.R. The reason for
rejection of the recommendation of the District Honour Committee by
Respondent – State do not find support from the said G.R. The said
clause nowhere specifies as to what should form the basis for the District
Honour Committee to recommend the Freedom Fighter for Pension.
13. In addition to the above referred documents, the Certificate
signed by nine (9) villagers between the age group of 85 to 95 that, the
Petitioner participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement during
1947-48 is discarded by Respondent – State on the ground that the
aforesaid G.R. do not provide for such document. True, that the said
G.R. do not provide for such document, it was an additional document
submitted by the Petitioner in support of his claim. The ground for its
rejection appears improper.
14. Much emphasis is given by the learned AGP for the State on the
decision in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors vs. Namdeo etc etc.
13 FA6675/2020
(supra). The said decision is also relied on by the learned Advocate for
the Petitioner. The said Judgment is in respect of said G.R. issued by the
State of Maharashtra towards Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. The
Respondents therein claimed the Pension under the category
‘Underground Free Fighters’ and the above referred clauses from the
said G.R. were considered. In the said case, except the Affidavits of
certain persons, no material or proof was given in support of the claim
for the Pension, having been participated in the Freedom Movement.
The Recommendation from District Honour Committee was signed only
by two Members and not signed by the Official Member namely
Additional Collector. This shows that the recommendation of the
District Honour Committee in that case was not unanimous. As the
claims in that case was based only on Affidavits with no other material,
it was observed that if claims are allowed merely on such Affidavits, that
would amount to giving complete go bye to the requirement of the
scheme and that cannot be allowed. Here, in the case at hand, it is not
so. Unlike the said case, there is unanimous recommendation by the
District Honour Committee recommending the Petitioner for the said
Pension. This aspect shows that, factual aspects were not similar.
By considering the earlier Judgment, the legal position on the issue
involved is summed up in the said case of Namdeo etc etc. (supra), in
paragraph no.19, which is reproduced below :
14 FA6675/2020
“(a) The claims of the freedom fighters are to be dealt with, with
sympathy.
(b) The authorities are not to go by the test of “beyond
reasonable doubt” and standard of proof based on this principle has
to be discarded.
(c) On the contrary, the principle of probability is to be applied
and eschewing the technicalities, the approach should be to uphold
the entitlement.
(d) When scheme itself mentions the documents which are
required to be produced by the applicant, normally those documents
need to be produced to prove the claim.
(e) The High Court exercising writ jurisdiction does not sit in
judgment over the decision of the State Government like an
appellate authority. The order of the State Government is to be
examined applying the parameters of judicial review which are
available in examining the validity of such orders.
(f) Even if order is found to be perverse or flawed, the High
Court can, at the most, remit back to the State Government to
reconsider the case.
However, this Court has also observed that there may be cases
where because of long lapse of time or other circumstances beyond
the control of the applicant, it is almost impossible or cumbersome
to procure and produce all the stipulated documents. In such cases,
the claim cannot be summarily rejected for want of documents, even
though as per the Pension Scheme, such documents are to be
provided. We are of the opinion that to meet such eventualities,
following principle needs to be added:
(g) On the basis of evidence/documents/material submitted by
the applicant, the Government should examine whether it is a
genuine case and the documents produced establish that the
applicant had participated in the freedom movement. It should be
done applying the principle of probability. If the material/documents
produced are otherwise convincing, the Government in appropriate
cases may not insist on strict compliance with all the requirements
stated in the Scheme.”
15. As observed above, the papers on record goes to show that the
Respondent – State maintained its earlier decision of rejection of
Petitioner’s claim towards Freedom Fighters Pension on the grounds not
15 FA6675/2020
in consonance with the requirement of the said G.R. At the cost of
repeatation, Condition No.1 was fulfilled and the documents referred in
Condition Nos.3 and 4 were optional. There is unanimous
recommendation by the District Honour Committee. In addition to the
said document, there were the Affidavits of the Pensioner Freedom
Fighters and the Certificate signed by the certain villagers between the
age group of 85 to 95 in support of Petitioner’s claim. Considering the
above referred legal position and the requirement of the said G.R., the
impugned order passed by the Respondent – State does not stand the
scrutiny of the above referred G.R. and the legal position as summed up
in the above referred Judgment. In the earlier order of this Court
remanding the matter to the Government, it was observed that, the
matter would not be approached perfunctorily and hyper technically.
However, the Respondent – State maintained its earlier decision
rejecting the Petitioner’s claim for the ‘Underground Freedom Fighters
Pension’ by discarding the material available on record on the grounds
uncalled for. We see no other option, but to allow the Petition. Hence,
the following order.
ORDER
(i) The Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 29.06.2020 passed by Respondent –
State (Exh. ‘J’) is quashed and set aside.
16 FA6675/2020
(iii) The Respondent – State shall issue necessary Certificate in the
name of the Orig. Petitioner as the ‘Underground Freedom Fighter’
having been participated in Hyderabad Liberation Movement and
sanction the Pension accordingly, in accordance with the said G.R. from
the date of the Application i.e. 24.03.2004.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) ( R. G. AVACHAT, J. )
GGP
Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/07/2025 17:58:00