JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-Shri Surajmal Navlakha has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of clause (b) of sub- rule (1) of rule 6 of the Rajasthan Freedom Fighters Aid Rules, 1959 (the Rules) and the order No. P. 14(27) GA/1/93 dated 16:8.1993 (Annex. 4) passed by the Assistant Secretary, General Administration (Group-1) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 2). The case set up by the petitioner in this writ petition is as under : 2. The petitioner was a volunteer in the Praja Mandal of Jaipur under which independence movement in the erstwhile State of Rajasthan was being conducted and that he actively participated in the movement since 1936 and also took part in the activities of Azad Morcha in the year 1942 and was arrested and prosecuted under the Defence of India Rules and was lodged in the Central Jail, Jaipur on 6.2.1943 where he remained till he was released on bail and that the prosecution launched against him under the Defence of India Rules, ultimately ended in acquittal. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner has been associated with prominent freedom fighters of Jaipur State. The petitioner has further pleaded that he had submitted an application on 7.4.1988 for being granted the pension under the Rules and vide letter dated 19.8.1988 he was asked to forward the certificates showing that he suffered atrocities in jail during the independence movement and that after obtaining the certificate dated 2.4.1993 (Annex. 1) from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur he forwarded the same to the respondents, but vide letter dated 23.4.1993 (Annex. 3) he was informed that in absence of the above said certificate the record of the earlier application had been destroyed and he should submit a fresh application with the attested copy of the certificate in question and he did accordingly. Vide the impugned letter dated 16.8.1993 (Annex. 3) he was informed that in absence of the above said certificate the record of the earlier application had been destroyed and he should submit a fresh application with the attested copy of the certificate in question and he did accordingly. Vide the impugned letter dated 16.8.1993 (Annex. 4) he was informed that a person for being eligible for grant of pension must have taken part in the independence movement for a period of 10 years after attaining the age of majority and during that period he should have suffered atrocities and, according to the age furnished by the petitioner, he was only 23 years old on 15.8.1947 and thus could not have taken part in the independence movement for a period of 10 years after attaining the majority on the said date. On receipt of this letter, the petitioner sent a notice for demand of justice dated 1.9.1993 (Annex. 5), but having got no relief, has approached this court by filing this writ petition challenging clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 6 of the Rules on the ground that non-counting of the period during which one took part in the independence movement before attaining majority was bad. 3. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents, who have opposed the same by filing their reply and have supported the validity of the rule and have also contended that the application of the petitioner had been rightly rejected. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 5. Sub-rule (1) of rule 6 along with its clause (b) reacts as under : "6. Pensions to political sufferers:-(1) Subject to the provision contained in sub-rule (4) of rule 5 a suitable pension not exceeding seventy-five rupees per mensem in any case may be granted for life in concurrence with the Finance Department; (a) ........................... (b) to person, who has mainly devoted his time in a political movement continuously for a period of not less than ten years after attaining the age of majority, and has been in jail during such period provided that he has not been released from jail after tendering apology and who is financially in distress." 6. (b) to person, who has mainly devoted his time in a political movement continuously for a period of not less than ten years after attaining the age of majority, and has been in jail during such period provided that he has not been released from jail after tendering apology and who is financially in distress." 6. It is not disputed before me that His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan had framed the Rules with a view to provide aid to the persons who suffered in political movement in the State of Rajasthan and the persons domiciled in the State of Rajasthan who had suffered in political, movement out of Rajasthan. It is also not disputed before me that on the call given by the national leaders during the independence movement, the citizens of this country; men, women and children had taken part in the independence movement and many such citizens irrespective of age had been arrested and had been subjected to atrocities by the then rulers. If the purpose of the rule is to grant aid to the persons who suffered during the independence movement, it has not been made clear as to what is the relevancy of the age and as to why the period before attaining the age of majority should be excluded while considering the relevant period. 7. The only contention of Shri R.P. Garg, the learned counsel for the respondents, is that it is only with a view to compensate for the loss suffered by the freedom fighters that the pension is provided to them, but a person, who had not attained the age of majority cannot be said to have understood that he would be suffering loss. 8. The fact cannot be lost sight of that independence was achieved by this country due to the sacrifices made by the persons who took part in the independence movement and suffered atrocities at the hands of the then rulers. The purpose of the rules is not to grant compensation to the freedom fighters and, in my view, the loss suffered by the freedom fighters cannot be assessed and no amount would be sufficient to compensate them for the loss suffered by many of them in the form of loss of future prospects in their careers, loss of freedom by being in jail away from family members, loss of property and loss of health due to atrocities etc. and the purpose of the rules is to provide pension to the persons in harness with a view to show gratitude for the services rendered by the freedom fighters. The rule, as it exists, has no nexus with the object which the rule wants to achieve and there is no rhyme or reason to deprive the persons otherwise eligible by not counting the period during which they took part in the independence movement before attaining the age of majority. 9. I, therefore, find that the above said rule.as far as it does not take into consideration the period for which a person took part in the independence movement before attaining the age of majority is bad and is liable to be struck down and the impugned order dated 16.8.1993 (Annex. 4) having been passed rejecting the application of the petitioner in view of the above-said provision in the rule also deserves to be quashed. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the words "after attaining the age of majority" in clause, (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 6 of the Rules are struck down and the impugned order No. P. 14(27)G.A./1/93 dated 16.8.1993 (Annx. 4), passed by the Assistant Secretary, General Administration (Group-1) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur is quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh and grant him the pension, if he otherwise deserves on merit, without unnecessary delay. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.Writ Petition Allowed. *******