FATIMABEN A SIPAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After 45 years of independence quite an embarassing and heart-searching question which this Court is painfully befaced to deal with is - What indeed could be the real fun in having valuable bejewelled golden ornaments lying treasured in cupboard when a person for whom it is actually meant for is simply struggling hard and/or is unable to keep his/her body and soul together to adore the same in these extremely hard days of ever-escalating inflation ? Similar indeed is perhaps the question which has casted its omnious shadow of gloom on the facts of the instant case where this Court to its quite great predicament finds that despite availability of the most cherished valuable fundamental rights the system of Rule of Law to enforce them tall talks of justice equality liberty and dignity of the citizen treasured as guarantee in the Constitution of India some poor disabled downtrodden citizens who do not have any economic means to have bread to survive and sustain their lives are unable to enjoy the same ? In the light of this question do not all these fundamental rights in absence of the effective right to live meaning thereby right to have economic assistance appear quite ridiculous and pales into insignificance just like a zero without any other numerical figures ahead of it to have any meaning ? It is not that only hungry nacked and homeless who are undergoing the real pangs and sufferings of the struggles for their existence can tell us what is the real meaning of the aforesaid otherwise glorified fundamental rights in absence of food to stomach cloths to cover and home to shelter in Today is it not that for millions and millions in our country the unconditional economic security to helpless and handicapped and right to employment to be physically fit can only be the real first and foremost fundamental right and that in absence of this supreme right to bread the requirement of life and right to employment to earn bread the unquestionable foundation of socio-economic justice what indeed could be the meaning and purpose of fundamental rights which to them as often alleged perhaps appear just a window dressing only In short the real question ultimately involved in case like the present one is whether the have nots would be justified in making grievance in alleging that there are two classes of citizens in this country namely one from whom the benefits of fundamental rights under the Constitution are available viz. that of haves and the second of have nots - who just go on struggling hard for their daily basic economic needs of life and because of this for whom the said fundamental rights are nothing but a joks and scoff at the empty ballies

(2.) This takes us now to few relevant facts constituting the background in which the above startling question arises. Accordingly petitioner Fatimaben A. Sipai is widow of one Alibhai Chandbhai who while working at Rajula in the Court of erstwhile State of Jafrabad died in the year 1947 Petitioner unfortunately having no issue thereafter started living with her brother who also died some years thereafter leaving her alone in this world to lead a miserable life without any economic support It is under these circumstances that the poor illiterate petitioner approached the concerned authority for getting pension but as the Family Pension Scheme was not in force she did not get any help in those days Petitioner thereafter approached office of the District Sahayak at Amreli but there also she was informed that by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 19-5-1989 widows were not entitled to any monetary assistance who had applied after 21-3-1988. Enlisting further details as stated in the petition according to the petitioner the action of the respondent - authorities in fixing a cut-date for giving assistance to widows being arbitrary illegal and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution the same deserves to be struck down. It also appears that before applying for family pension petitioner had made some efforts to collect the service record of her deceased husbands from Rajula Court which she was told was not available. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner having failed to get pension as a widow of Government servant has ultimately knocked the door of this Court with the help of Legal Aid Committee giving rise to the present petition.

(3.) Mr. K. J. Thakar the learned Advocate for the petitioner while striving hard to make out a case of some pensionary assistance vehemently submitted that petitioner is an old poor and disabled lady without any family members to support her and is practically starving. Mr. Thakar further submitted that whatever best efforts that could be put in to collect the service record of her late husband-Alibhai in order to secure pensionary assistance have been made by her but unfortunately as the misfortune continues to shadow her the service record being quite old i.e. of the year 1947 and untraceable the concerned Court has shown its inability to assist her. Mr. Thakar under the circumstances quite frankly submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case if it was not possible to give any pensionary assistance to the petitioner in her capacity of being widow of Government servant then in that case at least on humanitarian grounds some recommendation be made to the State Government to give economic assistance so that she can keep her body and soul together to honourably live remaining days of her life and in any case do not succumb to frustration and starvation death