LexKAMALBAI SINKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 1011 KAMALBAI SINKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5344 of 2012) JULY 20, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] A B Freedom Fighters' Pension - Application seeking freedom fighters' pension - In the category of 'Underground C Freedom Fighter' - Documents furnished as per the requirement under Government Resolution - Application rejected by State Government - High Court confirming the order of State - On appeal, held: The applicant made out a case for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension under the D category 'Underground Freedom Fighter' - Since the applicant is no more, direction to grant the pension to his wife-appellant. Husband of the appellant forwarded his application claiming freedom fighters pension under the category E 'Underground Freedom Fighter'. He enclosed certain documents in support of his claim as required by the Government Resolution dated 4. 7 .1995. The State Government communicated the Colle~tor that there was no concrete evidence to prove the participation in the freedom fight movement by the applicant and hence his F application was rejected. Writ Petition was filed challenging the order of the State. High Court dismissed · the petition confirming the order of the State. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The appellant's husband made a genuine effort to collect all those credentials in his support as 1011 G H 1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A required under the Resolution of the State Government dated 04.07.1995, and forwarded them to the State Government along with his application. When the Collector forwarded his letter and reiterated his recommendation in his subsequent communications, B there was no reason for the State Government to simply reject the application without assigning any reason. A perusal of the documents enclosed by the appellant's husband along with his application disclose that the appellant's husband made out a case for grant of c Freedom Fighters' Pension under the category "Underground Freedom Fighter". There was nothing more for the State to examine to honour the claim of the appellant's husband for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension. The claim of the appellant's husband cannot be 0 held to be a fraudulent one or without any supporting material. The High Court ought to have examined the grievance of the appellant before confirming the order of rejection of the respondent State. [Paras 8 and 9] [1017- A-E] E Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and Ors. 2001 (8) SCC 8: 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 323 - relied on. 2. The respondent State is directed to grant Freedom Fighters' Pension in favour of the appellant's husband F and since he is no more, grant the same with all arrears to the appellant. [Para 9] [1017-F] G Case Law Reference: 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 323 Relied on Para 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5344 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 6.3.2009 of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition H No. 506 of 2009. KAMALBAI SINKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1013 Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Somanatha Padhan A for the Appellant. Mike P. Desai, Sanjay Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAKKiR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. Leave granted. B 2. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the High Court in the Writ Petition in which the claim of the appellant's C husband for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension came to be rejected. Today the original applicant is not available and his wife is pursuing this litigation. By a Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995, after making references to various other earlier resolutions of the Government of Maharashtra relating D to grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension, the criteria for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension was specified under two different categories, namely, one under "Prisoners Freedom Fighter" and the- other under the category of "Underground Freedom Fighter". The claim of the appellant's husband was under the E second category, namely, "Underground Freedom Fighter". 3. For grant of pension under the said category following requisites were stipulated: "E) Underground Freedom Fighter:- Those freedom fighters who were under ground and doing a work in a movement of Quit India 1942-44 and Hydrabad Mukti Sangram 1947-48. They
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.