JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. On 27th March, 2001 the Court has issued direction to issue notice to the learned Advocate General as to why the provisions of clause (vi) and (vii) of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Minor and Mineral Concession Rules be not struck down being arbitrary and unreasonable. 3. In response to the said notice, reply has been submitted on behalf of State and it has been stated that clauses (vi) and (vii) have been inserted in Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. Rule 27 (vi) and (vii) have been made to have the provision akin to the provision of Workmen's Compensation Act, where compensation is awardable to the dependents of an employee who has suffered injury causing permanent disability or has died. in the course of his employment to compensate the dependents of such incumbent. 4. Clause (vi) and (vii) is a welfare measure for the employees of the State to give them relief in case an employee has died in the course of employment or suffered permanent disability in the course of his employment. This is apparent from the fact that in clause (vi) the benefit is conferred on such soldiers or ex-soldiers who have suffered permanent disability or killed in action, and soldiers or ex-soldiers, who have become permanently disabled or killed otherwise than while in action have not been conferred with any benefit of priority consideration under Clause (vi). Likewise term `while on duty' has been used for expression `killed in action' for the purpose of extending the benefit of similar priority consideration to civilian employees of the State of Rajasthan. 5. Likewise term `while on duty' has been used for expression `killed in action' for the purpose of extending the benefit of similar priority consideration to civilian employees of the State of Rajasthan. 5. This making of welfare legislation by the State of Rajasthan as delegate of power under Mines and Mineral Regulation & Development Act, by framing rules with the objecting for extending the benefit of considering application for grant of mining lease to such permanent disabled soldiers including ex-soldiers as well as State employees, who have suffered such permanent disability in the course of action/in the course of employment (while on duty) as the case may be and to the dependents of deceased soldiers/ex-soldiers from the State who died while in action, or employees of State who have died in the course of employment at No. (vi) & (vii) or the Mining Mineral Concession Rules, has rational nexus to object sought to be achieved, namely fixing the priority in the matter of consideration, on need basis for providing equal opportunity of economic development. Therefore, it cannot be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary or founded on unreasonable classification. 6. I further find that there is no challenge to the validity of these provisions by the petitioners in the petition. 7. In these circumstances, Rule 27 (vi) and (vii) of the Rules of 1986 are held to be valid and the contention to the contrary is over ruled. 8. The question then arises as to the interpretation of Rule 27 (vi) and (vii) and to determine in that light whether the petitioners are entitled to get any relief under the Rules for securing priority in the allotment of mining lease. 9. In view of the aforesaid interpretation, that Clause (vii) of Rule 27 applies to the cases akin to any employee, suffering injury resulting in permanent disability or death in the course of employment as in the case of Workmen's Compensation Act, the case of the petitioners for the purpose of determining priority may be examined in that light by the concerned Mining Engineer/Assistant Mining Engineer as the case may be on the facts of the case after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant in whose favour lease was sanctioned but the same has been cancelled, before finally deciding their application. 10. 10. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Mining Engineer/Assistant Mining Engineer on 24th September, 2001 and thereafter the Mining Engineer shall proceed in accordance with law. Till the applications of the petitioners are finally decided, the subsequent applicants' prayer shall not be entertained in respect of area in question, if not already allotted. Subject to above interim order passed by this Court on 27th March, 2001 stands vacated. 11. No orders as to costs.Writ Petition disposed of. *******