- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a Freedom Fighter and is not getting pension or any amount towards Freedom Fighter under the scheme floated by the Union of India.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner had remained in Jail as a Freedom-Fighter and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the pension as Freedom-Fighter under the scheme, floated by the respondent- Union of India and as the respondents have not paid pension of the Freedom- Fighter, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that there is not a single document which proves that the petitioner is a Freedom Fighter. Secondly, it is submitted by Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the respondents that previously preferred writ petition was also not decided in favour of the present petitioner for the same very relief. The same was being W. P. (C) 5562 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 19th November, 2003 and representation was directed to be decided by the concerned respondents- authorities. Thus, once again, looking to the grievances, ventilated by the petitioner, by the high ranking officer of the Union of India, an order was passed on 28th April, 2004, Annexure-11 to the memo of petition that the petitioner is not entitled to Freedom-Fighter pension because he has not presented any document in his favour and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to Freedom-Fighter pension. Today also the petitioner is unable to point out any documentary evidence right from Annexure-1 to Annexure-11 in his favour and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.;