KESHAV PRASAD CHOURASIYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, aggrieved by the letter dtd. 17/2/2012, issued by respondent No.3, whereby the case of petitioner for grant of Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidihi has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveals that in the year 2007, the petitioner claiming to be the son of late freedom fighter Garib Das Chourasiya, applied for the benefit of the Samman Nidhi on the ground that he is unemployed, living below the poverty line and also suffering from loss of vision (40% disability). As no decision was taken on this application, he approached this Court by filing W.P. No.12856/2011, seeking benefit of the Samman Nidhi/Freedom Fighter Pension, which was disposed of vide order dtd. 28/9/2011, directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. The representation/ application of the petitioner came to be rejected by the order dtd. 17/2/2012, relying on Rule 1(A) of the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidihi Rules, 1972, on the ground that petitioner is not permanently disabled and dependent on his father.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was totally dependent on his father. Relying on Rule 1(A) of the Rules, 1972, it is argued that the definition of family also includes adult disabled son, who is wholly dependent on his freedom fighter father/mother and was unable to earn or sustain himself. It is stated that the petitioner is permanently disabled having 40% loss of vision and is unable to support himself and his family members. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of family given under the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidihi Rules, 1972. It is stated that married son or daughter cannot claim the benefits provided under the Rules. It is stated that petitioner is married and not permanently handicapped as alleged. It is stated that as per the enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar, it was found that the petitioner was earlier working in the office of Shri P.S. Tiwari, Advocate as Munshi and he developed the loss of vision in the year 2010 only. Under the circumstances, he was not physically handicapped since birth. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has three daughters, who are already married.