Shri. Sachin Subhash Hundekari v. Swatantrya Sainik Nagar, Sangola Road, Pandharpur, District Solapur

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai, Copy to be served upon AGP High Court, A.S. Mumbai ] ] ] ] ] ] The Collector, Solapur Collector Office, Solapur ] (Copies to be served on the AGP ] High Court, A.S.) ]..Respondents Mr. S.S.Patwardhan for petitioner Mr. A.I.Patel AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM : S.A.BOBDE AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J. RESERVED ON : 16.11.2011 PRONOUNCED ON : 21.11.2011 JUDGMENT : [PER V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]:

#1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for the Respondents. 1

#2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and matter is heard finally.

#3. The case of the petitioner is that his grand-father had participated in the Indian National Freedom Struggle. His grand father was honoured with “Swantatrya Sainik Samman Patra” under the “ Swantatrya Sainik Samman Patra Scheme” launched by the 1st respondent-State as well as Union of India. After the death of his grand-father, the petitioner's grand mother being of very old age, nominated the petitioner for employment in government service as per the Government Circular No.CNS-1087/499/c.No.12/16-A dated 4.3.1991. As per clause 4 of the said Circular, the widow of the freedom fighter is given the right to make nomination of a near relative mentioned in clause 5 thereof for eligibility in government service.

#4. According to the petitioner, he was eligible for employment as per the said Government Circular, however, he was not appointed and by order dated 7.6.2005 the petitioner was informed that his request for appointment in government service has been disallowed. The petitioner is seeking direction to set aside the order dated 7.6.2005 passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. the Collector, Solapur and he has further sought direction to the respondents to absorb the 2 petitioner in an appropriate post in government service on the basis of the nomination dated 1.2.2005 made by his grand-mother.

#5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's grand-mother expired on 6.3.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner received impugned order dated 7.6.2005 from the Collector, Solapur. We may quote the relevant portion of the same which reads thus: “The inquiry of the application submitted by the aforesaid department has been made by Tahsildar, Pandharpur when it is found that widow of Freedom Fighter Smt. Indirabai Ramchandra Hundekar has expired on 6.3.2005. Taking into consideration, the provisions Government letter No. EST/3491/Pra. Kra./489/E-7 dated 14.11.1996 in that regard the note of nomination letter given in your name by the widow of freedom fighter for granting service in Class-III and Class-IV post in Government services, cannot be acceded to. Your request in this regard has been disallowed and the application of the aforesaid date has been filed in record.” The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above approach of the respondents is improper and hyper technical. 3

#6. On going through the impugned order dated 7.6.2005 it is noticed that it makes a reference to the Government letter dated 14.11.1996 bearing letter No. EST-3491/PK-489/E-7. The said letter clearly states that right to nominate a person for appointment in Government service is by the freedom fighter and after his demise the right goes to his widow. The said right cannot be exercised by any other person except the widow of the freedom fighter. The letter further states that the object behind the scheme of granting the right to the widow of a freedom fighter for nominating a relative for appointment in government service is with a view that the nominee would look after the widow of the freedom fighter in her old age. If the wife of the freedom fighter is not alive, then obviously the issue of looking after the widow of the freedom fighter does not arise.

#7. From the object behind the scheme, it is clear that the scheme was formulated with the object that the widow of the freedom fighter should be looked after in her lifetime. Therefore, in the absence of the freedom fighter, the widow was also allowed to nominate a relative for government service. However, when the freedom fighter or his wife are not alive, then there is no question of looking after the 4 freedom fighter or his widow and in such case, once the widow dies, the nomination made by the widow of the freedom fighter would not survive.

#8. Thus, in the above circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.A.BOBDE, J. ] 5