Bombay HC Resolves 20-Year-Old Pension Dispute, Grants Backdated Pension To Widow Of A Freedom Fighter

The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench ordered the Maharashtra government to sanction a pension to an 80-year-old widow of a freedom fighter. The petitioner (freedom fighter) filed the case first in 2004, but was denied pension by the then authorities. The petitioner passed away during this time, and his widow pursued the case as his legal heir. Finally, on July 7, 2025, the bench comprising Justice RG Avachat and Justice Neeraj P Dhote directed the state government to pay a backdated pension to the petitioner's widow. The retrospective pension will be effective from March 24, 2004. It brought relief to the old widow after a long legal ordeal.

Case Background

The petitioner filed a pension request in March 2004 under the 'Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme' of the state government. He claimed to have participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement during 1947-48, and wanted to be considered an 'Underground Freedom Fighter'.

When he claimed the pension, he submitted different documents, including affidavits from himself and other freedom fighters, testimonials from villagers of his age and older, and certificates from the local authorities. However, he did not receive any reply from the state authorities. At last, in 2016, he filed a writ petition with the Bombay High Court, pleading for the Court's intervention and direction in the matter.

Considering his old age, the Court instructed the authorities to expedite the process and complete the necessary formalities. The petitioner was also asked to submit any other documents required or do the paperwork formalities if needed. In May 2016, the petitioner submitted all the required documents. The District Honour Committee then recommended that the government approve his pension. The matter was sent to the state government for further action.

However, in August 2016, the state government denied the pension despite the Committee's recommendation. The petitioner then challenged the decision by filing another writ petition in 2017.

On February 18, 2020, the High Court set aside the rejection and asked the state government to reconsider the pension claim without approaching the matter 'perfunctorily and hyper technically'. However, the state again maintained its earlier decision and rejected the claim.

The petitioner filed the writ petition again, under which the Court directed the state government to pay backdated pension.

Arguments

The petitioner claimed that despite submitting all the documents as per the government resolution (G.R.), and the recommendation of the District Honour Committee, the government is not sanctioning him the pension. For the documentation part, his counsel argued that certain clauses for documents in G.R. were optional and should not be considered mandatory for deciding pension sanction.

The state counsel argued the lack of documentary evidence showing the petitioner's participation in the freedom movement, rendering the claim void.

Court Judgement

The Court found that rejection of the claim by the state was not in adherence to the G.R.'s clause 3 and 4, which mandates that the documents (a certified copy of the government record of the relevant time showing 'remained underground' and original copy of newspaper published at the relevant time giving information about the Applicant having gone underground with name) are to be taken, if available. It also noted the Committee's recommendation for granting the pension to the petitioner.

It criticised the state's perfunctory approach in rejecting the claim 'on the grounds uncalled for' and by considering only the material available on record.

The Court quashed the June 2020 impugned order and allowed the petition. It directed the state to sanction a pension to the petitioner's widow from the filing date of the first application which was March 24, 2004.