Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1973 (RAJ)

Srikishan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2007-10-10

GOVIND MATHUR

body2007
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.—During the Indo Pak war of 1971 the petitioner was Driver of the first train that carried vital supplies for the Jawans fighting in enemy territory. The train while performing shunting at Khokharapar (Pakistan) faced a repeated bombing and strafing attacks by enemy aircrafts causing considerable damage to a large number of coaches and railborne tanks. The petitioner stuck to his post undeterred and continued to perform his duties even during these attacks and succeeded in removing the train to a safe distance and also completed the placement of water tanks and other wagons containing vital supplies before backing his train to Munabao (India). His Excellency the President of India looking to the commendable courage and exemplary sense of duty award gallantry decoration “Shaurya Chakra”. 2. The Government of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 1 of Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as, ‘the Act of 1956’) read with Sections 261 and 90 thereof and Section 28 read with Section 7 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 made the Rules viz. “ Rajasthan Gallantry Awards (Cash Rewards and Land Grants) Rules, 1966” (hereinafter to be referred to as, ‘the Rules of 1966’), with an object to recognize and reward members of the defence services of the country who have distinguished themselves by conspicuous act of gallantry and are awarded gallantry decoration by the President of India. “ Rajasthan Gallantry Awards (Cash Rewards and Land Grants) Rules, 1966” (hereinafter to be referred to as, ‘the Rules of 1966’), with an object to recognize and reward members of the defence services of the country who have distinguished themselves by conspicuous act of gallantry and are awarded gallantry decoration by the President of India. Rule 7 of the Rules prescribes that, “as soon as a gallantry award is published in the Gazette of India the holder of the gallantry award or his heirs, as the case may be, may apply to the Collector of the District concerned in which the said holder of his heirs reside or resided.” The terms “Gallantry Awards” and “Holder of Gallantry Awards” are defined under Sub-rule (1) and Sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of the Rules respectively as follows: “2(i) ‘Gallantry Award’ means any of the following Gallantry Awards instituted by the President of India- (a) Param Vir Chakra (b) Ashok Chakra (c) Sarvotam Yudha Seva Medal (d) Maha Vir Chakra (e) Kirti Chakra (f) Uttam Yudha Seva Medal (g) Vir Chakra (h) Shaurya Chakra (i) Yudha Seva medal (j) Sena/Nao Sena/Vayu Sena Medal 2(iii) ßÓkkS;Z iqjLdkj /kkjdÞ ls ,slk O;fä vfHkizsr gS ftls ÓkkS;Zrk iqjLdkj iznku fd;k x;k gS rFkk tks jktLFkku esa vf/kokflr gS vFkok tks Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gS vkSj ftlus ;q¼ ds nkSjku jktLFkku esa dgha Hkh yM+kbZ ds eSnku esa lkgl iznfÓkZr djus ds vk/kkj ij ÓkkS;Z iqjLdkj izkIr fd;k gSAÞ (Sub-rule (3) inserted in vernacular by Notification dt. 17.12.1989). 3. The petitioner being a gallantry award holder submitted an application as per Rule 7 of the Rules but no action was taken by the competent authorities. Thus, the Collector, Jodhpur by a communication dt. 26.02.2007 made a recommendation to the State Government for allotment of land to the petitioner and reiterated the same vide letter dt. 08.08.2007, however, that was turned down by the State Government on 09.08.2007 with a finding that the Rules are having application to the members of defence and police service only and the petitioner not being a member of the services aforesaid is not entitled for getting any reward or grant of land under the Rules. Aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred. 4. Aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred. 4. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that under the Rules entitlement for cash award and grant of land is for holder of gallantry award irrespective of their master, thus, the State Government erroneously rejected his claim. 5. On being prima facie satisfied with the arguments advanced the Court instructed learned Dy. Government Advocate to accept notice and looking to pure legal nature of controversy with consent of the parties this matter is heard for final disposal. 6. The denial of reward and grant of land to the petitioner is vehemently supported by learned Dy. Government Advocate with an argument that as per preface of the Rules intention of the Legislature is to recognize and award members of defence or police service for their distinguished act of gallantry and the petitioner being an employee of Indian Railways can not be considered for any grant under the Rules of 1966. 7. In precise the issue that requires adjudication is application of the Rules of 1966 for a “gallantry award holder” who is neither a member of defence service nor enrolled with police services. 8. As per Rule 7 of the Rules a holder of gallantry award or his heirs are entitled for cash reward and grant of land. The Rules nowhere refer or make the grant dependent to defence or police service. As a matter of fact the term “defence service” is not used in entire set of Rules except in preface. The preface is not part of the Rules, and therefore, it cannot be regarded as an independent source of any substantive power or express provision in the Rules or by implication there from. The Rules nowhere prohibit for grant of reward and land to a gallantry award holder who is otherwise eligible but not a member of defence service. The State Government, therefore, wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner under the Rules of 1966. 9. Though the petition for writ could have been accepted on basis of the discussion as above, however, it is asserted by learned Dy. Govt. Advocate that the Rules of 1966 are to be interpreted in light of the intention of the Legislature as reflected in preface and according to that the only object of the Rules is to award cash and land to members of defence service. 10. Govt. Advocate that the Rules of 1966 are to be interpreted in light of the intention of the Legislature as reflected in preface and according to that the only object of the Rules is to award cash and land to members of defence service. 10. The term “defence service” is neither interpreted under the Act of 1956 nor is defined under the Rules but it is certainly used in preface. It is a known law of interpretation that every word and sentence used must have some meaning and at the same time it is also well established that if a word or sentence purporting to express a subordinate idea clashes with principal idea the former must adjusted to the later or must be disregarded altogether and if there is irreconcilable contradiction between the two provisions having equal force, the provision more in accordance with the equity should be adopted. As stated above the term “members of defence service” is not used in the Rules of 1966 but is used only in its preface and that is also not defined under the Act of 1956 as well as under the Rules of 1966. The terms “gallantry award” and “holder of gallantry award” are defined under the Rules of 1966. The cash award and grant of land also relates to these terms under Rules 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the Rules of 1966. It is pertinent to note here that the gallantry awards referred in Sub-rule(1) of Rule 2 of the Rules are instituted by the President of India to acknowledge outstanding courage and bravery of the persons participating in war. Participation of a person in a war is not dependent to the employment or enrollment with military or police service. The grant of gallantry award is a recognition of outstanding courage and bravery and object of the Rules is to award such recognition. The principal object of the Rules, therefore, is to award and felicitate the gallantry award holders. It is well known that during war beside the members of defence service people belonging to different discipline of life actively participate and exhibit outstanding courage bravery and sacrifice. The principal object of the Rules, therefore, is to award and felicitate the gallantry award holders. It is well known that during war beside the members of defence service people belonging to different discipline of life actively participate and exhibit outstanding courage bravery and sacrifice. The interpretation of the Rules of 1966 put forwarded on behalf of the State Government as a matter of fact shall frustrate the object of the Rules, that is to reward the persons with conspicuous acts of gallantry and are awarded gallantry decorations by the President of India. In the present matter the petitioner though was not a member of defence service (the term only used for military service) but he certainly participated in a defence action and his participation was not only acknowledged but was rewarded by none else than the President of India by decorating him with “Shaurya Chakra”. What it appears that the term “members of the defence service” in preface of the Rules of 1966 virtually means the members who participated in defence action. Thus, the petitioner being a person who participated in defence action is having entitlement to be dealt with as per the Rules of 1966. 11. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The decision of the State Government rejecting claim of the petitioner for getting cash reward and for grant of land under the Rules of 1966 is declared illegal. The respondent-State is directed to consider case of the petitioner for grant of cash reward and land under the Rules of 1966 within a period of two months from the date the respondents receive a certified copy of this order. The Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to Collector, Jodhpur immediately to process case of the petitioner for grant of cash reward and land as per the Rules of 1966. No order as to cost.