SBCWP NO.3704/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3704/1997. Parsadi Ram Versus Union of India & Ors. Date of Order:- March 22, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Gajendra Singh Ratore for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel for the State. Shri Darshan Shree on behalf of Shri Bhanwar Bagri for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Prasadi Ram who claims that he was member of the Indian Naval Army and was enrolled therewith on 19/3/1930 and was discharged on 31/10/1945 and therefore his pay is governed by the Rajasthan Freedom Fighter Aid Rules, 1959(for short, “Rules of 1959”). Writ petition was filed with the prayer that respondents be directed to consider the case for appointment of his son Omprakash who has passed 9th Standard and in accordance with the Rules of 1959, he is entitled to get SBCWP NO.3704/97. 2 appointment. Writ petition was filed in the year 1997 by the petitioner after making number of representations but none of them were considered by the respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed on record copy of the certificate issued by the Record Officer (OIC Record) certifying the fact that he was a member of the Indian Naval Army and when he was initially enrolled, he was 19 years old and when he filed writ petition, he was 85 years old. 2) Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition and submitted that Rule 12(i) of the Rules of 1959 provided that only such person whose services have been discharged in pecuniary circumstances and who is less than 55 years of age, is entitled to re-employment. Petitioner did not apply therefore his case for re-employment could not be considered. Further, according to Rule 14 (ii) of the Rules of 1959, no application shall be entertained received after 17/7/1991 and in case the State Government considers such application after that date, reasons to be recorded in writing by the State Government. SBCWP NO.3704/97. 3 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner rejoined and submitted that petitioner submitted applications on 25/3/1995 and 20/6/1995 to the effect that looking to his old age, his dependent i.e. his son Omprakash may be given appointment, which applications were forwarded to the District Collector. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that even if petitioner has belatedly made application, fact still remains which the respondents have not disputed that petitioner is a freedom fighter, this writ petition remained pending consideration before this Court for last 13 years, it is not shown whether application of the petitioner for appointment of his son filed by him under Rule 14(ii) of the Rules of 1959 has received consideration by the State Government nor it is shown that any land was allotted to the petitioner in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1959. Therefore, writ petition deserves acceptance. 5) In the result, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to put up the case of the petitioner's son before the SBCWP NO.3704/97. 4 Government of Rajasthan which shall sympathetically consider case of the petitioner's son for appointment on any of the Class-IV post. If eventually, petitioner's son is appointed, his appointment would related to the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 29/3/1997 however, he would be only entitled to the pensionary benefits for the intervening period. 6) Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil