JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner is a Freedom Fighter/Political Sufferer, who was a volunteer of All India Charkha Sangh under which independence movement in the erstwhile State of Rajasthan was conducted and he actively participated in the movement in 1942. The petitioner being a freedom fighter is recognised by this Government as he was awarded by Tamra Patra' on 15.8.1992. 2. The petitioner was working in Khadi Utpadak Cooperative Society and was relived from his service on the ground that he was connected with the participation in the political movement. 3. This petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking writ, order or direction to provide appropriate suitable employment in Government service to his son Dhanraj Vardhan Mathur, who is graduate in Maths Science under the provisions of R. 12(5) of the Rules of 1959. In according with the R. 12(5) of Rules 1959 if a person who lost Government service in the circumstances specified in clause (d) of R. 2 has since died or in more than fifty-five years of age or has became infirm and unfit for Government service, the State Government may provide suitable employment in Government service to any two of such person's dependents, or if there be no dependents in existence of any one of his heirs, if it is satisfied to the existence of acute distress for want of such employment. 4. The petitioner also represented to His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan regarding appointment of his son in the Government service under the Rule of 1959 and the representation was referred to the Chief Secretary of State of Rajasthan. Ultimately the matter is referred to the District Collector, Kota vide letter dated 1.2.1997 but till date no appointment and recruitment is given to the petitioner's son. 5. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Court in the case of Daulat Ram v. State of Rajasthan . 6. Per contra learned counsel for the State denied all the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the service of the petitioner was dispensed with on account of active participation in political movement. The respondents further submit that the rules under which the petitioner is asking employment for his son is framed by the Government for grant of freedom fighter pension under the rules. The respondents further submit that the rules under which the petitioner is asking employment for his son is framed by the Government for grant of freedom fighter pension under the rules. Concession has been granted b3 the Government to the freedom fighters but they cannot claim any relief as a matter of right. 7. So far as the rules are concerned, the respondents do not dispute but submit that the petitioner's case does not fall within the ambit of R. 15. Firstly there is no proof on record that the petitioner has lost his services being political sufferer and secondly it is nowhere stated that the petitioner is in acute stress for want of such employment and no satisfactory proof co this effect has been placed on record by the petitioner. 8. The Collector Kota also filed a reply and on behalf of the Collector it is submitted that the petitioner was never in the Government service and the rules are only applicable to those, who are in the Government service. In the present case the petitioner was not employed in the Government, therefore, he is not entitled for grant under the provisions of Rules 1959. 9. Be that as it may. Having considered the material available on the record and the relevant provisions of the Rules of 1959, so far as the petitioner is a freedom fighter is concerned, it is not disputed by the respective parties. However, it is admitted by the petitioner that he was in the Co-operative Service and was not in the Government service. It reveals by bare perusal of the R. 12(5) of the Rules 1959 that this benefit is extended only in favour of the freedom fighters, who are in the Government employment. 10. However, it is evident by the reply submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Collector, Kota after receipt of the representation of the petitioner has not passed any order on the representation. At least the petitioner has a right of consideration and the Collector, Kota should decide the representation so filed by the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and shall communicate the decision to the petitioner. 11. In view of the observations made herein above the writ petition stands disposed of.Writ Petition Disposed Of. *******