Fictitious Claims Of Freedom Fighter's Pension Should Be Dealt With Sternly: Bombay HC While Dismissing 80 Yrs Old Widow's Plea

"….all care has to be taken to see that the real freedom fighters do not suffer and their claims are accepted, but at the same time, fictitious claims have to be sternly dealt with on merits", the court observed.

Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Arun R. Pedneker of the Nagpur bench dismissed the plea stating that petitioner did not produce any material to show that her husband was a freedom fighter.

The petitioner claimed that her husband had been an underground activist involved in Hyderabad Liberation Movement. Her husband filed various applications claiming freedom fighter pension. He also applied to the Central Government to get the freedom fighter pension under Central Government's scheme of 1980.

His applications were rejected by the Collector and the Freedom Fighter Committee via communication dated July 31, 1999. The Central Government also rejected his claim on grounds of ineligibility by communication dated August 16, 2000. He did not challenge the orders of the Collector and the Central Government rejecting his claim applications.

He died in 2017 after which his wife (petitioner) filed a claim as a widow of freedom fighter which was rejected by the government. Hence, she approached the High Court challenging the rejection of both her and her husband's claims.

According to Government Resolution dated July 04, 1995, a claim of freedom fighter pension on the basis of underground activities has to be supported by affidavit of two freedom fighters who have either suffered at least two years of imprisonment for their proclaimed offence or declared absconding for at least two years.

The court noted that petitioner's husband had filed his own affidavits with his applications but did not support his application with the affidavit of freedom fighters who suffered incarceration for a period of two years.

The court relied on Apex Court judgment in Bhaurao Dagadu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra and Bombay High Court judgment in Damu Shejul v. State of Maharashtra and held that real freedom fighters should not suffer but fictitious claims must be dealt with sternly.

The petitioner's husband did not challenge the rejection of his claims and she can't do so belatedly, the court said. On merits, the court held that the petitioner is not entitled to claim pension as she has not produced any material to show that her husband was a freedom fighter involved in underground activities.

"In absence of any material, which shows that the husband of the petitioner was involved in freedom fighter's activities and in view of the fact that the State Government as well as the Central Government rejected the applications of the petitioner's husband, which were not challenged by the petitioner's husband, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed", the court held.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 8313 of 2022

Case title – Kaushlabai wd/o. Ranchoddas Vaishnav v. Union of India and Ors.