N.C. Kochhar , J. - (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. 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.;