Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 346 (RAJ)

Mungidevi v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-02

AJAY RASTOGI

body2006
Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant petition has been filed against communication dated 01.04.2005 (Annexure-10) whereby application submitted by Petitioner No. 2 for seeking appointment under Rajasthan Freedom Fighters Aid Rules, 1959 (“Rules, 1959”) was rejected by respondents. 2. Petitioner No. 2, claims himself to be adopted son of late Shri Chimnaram who was a freedom fighter having actively participated in India quit movement and died on 01.09.2004 and indisputably, was getting pension of Rs. 150/-per month from 01.01.1982 as is evident from order dated 19.05.1983 (Annexure-3) under Rules, 1959 and his family pension of Rs. 1,500/-per month besides Rs. 300/-per month towards medical aid. Petitioner No. 2 is natural son of Mahadaram who is younger brother of late Shri Chimnaram. He submitted application dated 06.04.2002 seeking appointment under Rules, 1959 and since no orders were passed, hence filed CWP No. 583/2004 wherein this Court vide order dated 09.03.2004 directed respondents to consider his application in accordance with Rules, 1959 and communicate decision whereof to him. In compliance of order, ibid, respondents took decision and rejected his application for Appointment under Rules, 1959 vide order dated 24.05.2004, against which he preferred CWP No. 4118/2004 wherein this Court vide order dated 04.01.2005 after hearing respondents found that what has been observed in impugned order (Annexure R-1) are contradictory to factual aspect referred to by respondent in its reply and hence directed respondents to re-consider application afresh in accordance with rules. Under direction of this Court, ibid, his application was considered afresh and vide order dated 01.04.2005 (Annexure-10), was finally rejected by respondents while making following observoations:- Hence, this petition 3. Counsel for petitioners contends that as is evident from Tehsildar Sikars report dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure-11) which was based on report of Area Patwari, Chimnaram Freedom Fighter has no tenancy of any agricultural land and there is no source of income except freedom fighter pension for livelihood of his family consisting of his wife (Petitioner No. 1) and adopted son (Petitioner No. 2) who are his dependents; as such Counsel urged that what has been observed by respondents in their communication (Annexure-10) about source of income and holding agricultural land, are factually incorrect and, therefore, very rejection of his application for seeking appointment under Rules, 1959 was arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. 4. 4. Respondents in their reply inter alia averred that it is a condition precedent that family of freedom fighter must be in extreme indigent condition due to unemployment which requires consideration for providing employment to one of members of such family. Respondents placed on record report of District Collector, Sikar dated 15.05.2004 (Annexure R-1) which inter alia states that Chimnaram adopted Petitioner No. 2 who is in fact natural son of Mahadaram, who is real brother of Chimnaram thereby Petitioner No. 2 is nephew of Chimnaram; and Chimnaram had transferred 4.92 hectare irrigated land and 2.65 hectare un-irrigated land in favour of Mahadaram in 1977 by way of gift deed and that apart, Om Prakash (Petitioner No. 2) adopted by Chimnaram is presently residing with Mahadaram alongwith Petitioner No. 1 and this land is being cultivated by family of Petitioner No. 1 and accordingly having source of livelihood from such land and that apart, family is getting Rs. 1,500/-per month as freedom fighter pension besides Rs. 300/-towards medical aid. The Collector assessed minimum agricultural income of Rs. 25,000/-per annum and having monthly income of Rs. 3,883/-as is evident from report dated 30.03.2005 (Annexure R-2) and thus the authorities were satisfied that there is no existence of acute distress which needs to provide employment under Rules, 1959. In these circumstances, Counsel for respondents contends that no mala fides have been alleged and the decision of authorities is based on the report furnished by Collector, Sikar and the facts referred to therein have not been controverted by petitioners and thus there is no error committed in rejecting his application. 5. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. This Act remains undisputed that despite the fact that Petitioner No. 2 is adopted son, he was entitled to be considered for appointment under Rules, 1959 but subject to conditions enumerated in Rule 12(5) of Rules, 1959, which reads thus - “12. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. This Act remains undisputed that despite the fact that Petitioner No. 2 is adopted son, he was entitled to be considered for appointment under Rules, 1959 but subject to conditions enumerated in Rule 12(5) of Rules, 1959, which reads thus - “12. Employment in Government service, etc.- (5) If a person who lost Government service in the circumstances specified in Clause (d) of Rule 3 has since died or is more than fifty five years of age or has become infirm and unfit for Government service the State Government may provide suitable employment in Government service to any two of such persons; dependents or, if there be no dependents in existence to any one of his heirs if it is satisfied of the existence of acute distress for want of such employment.” 6. Under Rules, 1959, those who are sufferers of political movement are provided financial aid. So far as Chimnaram who claimed to be freedom fighter is concerned, he was covered under Rule 3(d) of Rules, 1959 which reads as under:- “3. Sufferings for which aid may be granted.-The sufferings for which aid may be granted under these rules to a political sufferer or in case of his death to his dependents, shall be all or any of the following, namely:- (d) lossof Government service by dismissal, discharge, forced resignation on grounds connected with political movement or for association with or participation in a political movement or on the grounds of association or relationship with a person participating in a political movement or engaged in any activity connected with political movement.” “Dependent” is defined in Rule 2(i) which means “any of the following relations of a deceased political sufferer, namely, a wife, a destitute parent, a minor son or sons son, a brother, an unmarried daughter, or sister and a widowed daughter-in-law as well as minor children of a predeceased son.” 7. Thus, those who claim dependents as defined in Rule 2(i), upon freedom fighter to whom aid is to be granted are, required to be considered in terms of Rule 3(d) of Rules, 1959, and so far as appointment to “dependents” of freedom fighter is concerned, as has been provided under Rule 12(5), the authority has to examine circumstances while providing suitable employment only in case it is satisfied about existence of acute distress for want of such employment. 8. In instant case, respondents after making inquiry, prepared a report as sent by Office of Collector, Sikar vide Annexure R-1 (dated 15.05.2004) and Annexure R-2 (dated 30.03.2005) in view whereof , it has been recorded therein that land was transferred by Chimnaram to younger brother Mahadaram (natural father of Petitioner No. 2) by a gift deed in 1977 in respect of 4.92 hectare irrigated land and 2.65 hectare un-irrigated land and Petitioner No. 2 is married having wife and are minor sons and his family has sufficient source of income for livelihood and after consideration of report of Collector (Supra), respondents were satisfied that there was no acute indigent condition which requires employment to be provided to Petitioner No. 2. In my opinion, in absence of mala fide being alleged, satisfaction arrived at by the authority is based on material on record which ordinarily is not required to be interfered with. Moreover, this fact has not been disputed by petitioners that the land which was held by Chimnaram was transferred to his own real brother Mahadaram who is natural father of Petitioner No. 2 and which is being cultivated by petitioners who are also residing with family of Mahadaram and out of these agricultural land, they have sufficient source of livelihood for maintaining the family, hence there is no existence of acute indigent condition or distress for want of employment. Hence, I find no error in the impugned decision (Annexure-10) dated 01.04.2005 of the respondents. 9. Consequently the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.