Mohammad Rafiq, J.
1. These two writ petitions, which involve identical questions of law and facts, were heard together and are being decided simultaneously.
2. Writ petition No.9716/2007 has been filed by Smt. Kamla Kanwar. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that husband of petitioner late Naik Narayan Singh, 18th BSF Bn, had become permanently incapacitated for regular service in Indo-Pak War 1971 during Bangladesh operation. He was awarded Police Medal for gallantry by the President of India as per notification dated 19.12.1972 published in the Gazette of India dated 06.01.1973. The said award was made for gallantry under Rule 4(i) of the Rules governing the award of the Police Medal and consequently carries with it the special allowance admissible under Rule 5 thereof, with effect from 10.04.1971. In this connection, the Junior Staff Officer (Administration), Border Security Force, Jodhpur, sent a letter dated 07.04.1998 to Ex-LNK Narayan Singh. According to the petitioner, her husband was entitled to cash reward of Rs.15,000/- and allotment of 25 bigha irrigated land or 50 bigha un-irrigated land under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Gallantry Awards (Cash Rewards and Land Grants) Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules of 1966). This was not done till he was alive and unfortunately he died on 08.10.1999. After sad demise of her late husband, petitioner approached all the concerned authorities. The Zila Sainik Kalyan Adhikari Ajmer wrote a letter to the Director, Sainik Kalyan Vibhag Rajasthan, Jaipur, on 25.02.2003 for sanctioning cash reward and allotting land. The Director, Sainik Kalyan Vibhag Rajasthan, however, turned down the said request vide letter dated 22.03.2003, on the ground that as per the Rules, husband of petitioner is not eligible for gallantry award. Later on, the District Sainik Kalyan Adhikari also, by letter dated 19.02.2004, recommended the case of husband of the petitioner to the District Collector, Ajmer, stating that husband of the petitioner was injured in Indo-Pak war, therefore, under the provisions of the Rajasthan Special Assistance to Disabled Ex-serviceman and Dependants of Deceased Defence Personnel (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1963 and the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970, he was entitled for allotment of 25 bigha irrigated land. The District Collector, Ajmer, forwarded the matter to the Commissioner, Colonisation Department, Bikaner. The Additional Commissioner, Colonisation Department, Bikaner, by letter dated 27.05.2004, however, rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that husband of the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of land under the aforesaid Rules.
3. Writ petition No.9813/2007 has been filed by Shri B.S. Rathore. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that he was an officer in Para Military Force i.e. Central Reserve Police Force and that he was posted in Chhatisgarh State during 13th Parliamentary elections. On the pre-polling day i.e. 19.04.2004 he moved with his troop of 25 men, from place to place providing a sense of security to the voters and the general public. When his troop/party had covered distance of about 13 kilometers from Police Station Bhiramgarh to Bijapur, the petitioner stopped his vehicle and got down at a distance of 5 to 10 yards short of a culvert and also directed his troops to follow the same drill with a view to crossing the probable ambush/TED plantation site tactically on foot. At about 1235 Hrs when the petitioner came near to the culvert, hardly at a distance of 3 or 4 steps ahead, a power L.E.D. was triggered off in which he sustained splinter injuries on face, left hand thumb and also developed deafness in right ear due to sound of powerful blast. It was only owing to his extra alertness and sense of security, that the petitioner had a miraculous escape. The blast was followed by heavy firing by large group of about 150 naxalites including members sitting in ambush and they started shouting the war cries and called upon the CRPF party to surrender so as to save their lives or face the dire consequences. Despite sustaining injuries, even being highly outnumbered, the petitioner, without caring for own safety, took control of the situation, and motivated/encouraged his men to counter ambush restoring to heavy firing in the direction of naxalites. The petitioner himself fired 14 rounds from his 5.56 MM INSAS rifle. Since Naxalites had laid ambush covering the area of about half a kilometer, the petitioner assumed arduous responsibility and putting his own life in danger/risk, kept moving ahead and directing/encouraging his men to break the ambush. Due to bold and courageous action on the part of the petitioner as well as effecting firing of HE Bombs effective retaliatory action by the troop under the able command of the petitioner, the Naxalites got demoralised/disheartened and ran away taking advantage of forest along with their injured comrades. A Naxal person was apprehended and three were died. Due to unparallelled display of bravery and excellent command, a big catastrophe during Parliamentary election was averted. His Excellency the President of India, looking to the conspicuous gallantry, courage and devotion to duty of a high order by the petitioner, awarded him Police Medal for Gallantry vide gazette notification dated 20.05.2005.
4. According to petitioner, the Government of Rajasthan, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 read with Sections 261 and 90 thereof and Section 28 read with Section 7 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954, made the Rules of 1966 with an object to recognise and reward the members of the defence services of the country, who have distinguished themselves by conspicuous acts of gallantry and are awarded gallantry decorations by the President of India. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1966 provides that "as soon as a gallantry award is published in the Gazette of India, the holder of the gallantry award or his heirs, as the case may be, may apply to the Collector of the District concerned in which the said holder or his heirs reside or resided. Being a gallantry award holder, the petitioner, as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1966, submitted an application dated 23.08.2005 to the District Collector, Jaipur. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 01.09.2005 to the Chief Minister, Government of Rajasthan and Minister of concerned Department. The Agriculture Minister of the State of Rajasthan, vide communication dated 03.09.2005, recommended case of the petitioner to the Collector, Jaipur, for allotment of land. The respondents, vide letter dated 29.09.2005, communicated to the petitioner that land for allotment to him under the Rules of 1966 has been reserved by the Government vide notification dated 03.02.2005 in Indira Gandhi Canal Project Phase-II. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted number of representations/ applications to the respondents for allotment of land under the Rules of 1966, but no action was taken. Petitioner finally received letter dated 17.02.2007 from the Commissioner, Colonisation Department, Bikaner, whereby the Commissioner turned down his request for allotment of land on the ground that the Rules of 1966 are applicable to the members of defence and State police service only and not the members of the C.R.P.F. It was conveyed that request of the petitioner could only be considered after amendment in the Rules of 1966. The Commissioner, Rajasthan Colonisation Department, Bikaner, also sent proposal for amendment in the Rules of 1966 so as to include gallantry award holders of paramilitary forces, but nothing has been done by the State Government.
5. Hence these writ petitions by the petitioners.
6. Shri Amit Dhawan and Shri Naveen Dhuwan, learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that no discrimination can be made in the matter of award of grant of cash reward and allotment of land as per the Rules of 1966 as against members of paramilitary forces because nature of duties discharged by them is in no way dissimilar to that of the members of the Indian army. It is argued that Rule 7 of the Rules of 1966 provides for cash reward and allotment of land to those, who have been granted gallantry awards. It is in lieu thereof that allotment of land is made under the Rules of 1966. Such reward or allotment of land cannot be denied to petitioners, who are gallantry award holders, only because they happen to be members of paramilitary forces i.e. Border Security Force and Central Reserve Police Force.
7. Relying on judgment of this court in Srikishan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Others - 2008 (2) WLC 223, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that this Court therein interpreted the expression "defence service" in the context of Rules of 1966 and held that the term "defence service" is neither interpreted under the Act of 1956 nor is defined under the Rules but it is certainly used in preface. What is relevant for purpose of Rules is not nature of service but fact of gallantry shown by person of any discipline. The State Government was therefore directed to consider the case of the petitioner therein for allotment of land.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners referred to the amendment made in the Rules of 1966 vide notification dated 18.09.2002 and argued that the State Government has now, by aforesaid notification, included the members of the Indian Police Service belonging to the Rajasthan cadre and also included the Police Medal awarded by the President of India, and Police Medal for bravery, as one of the gallantry awards under Rule 2(i) of the Rules of 1966, entitling the awardees to cash reward and allotment of land under Rule 4(1) of those Rules. Therefore, there is no reason why the members of the Boarder Security Force or the members of the Central Reserve Police Force, who are native of Rajasthan and settled down in the State of Rajasthan, who have been awarded President's Police Medal for gallantry, should not be granted cash reward and allotment of land under the Rules of 1966.
9. Shri H.P. Bairwa, learned Additional Government Counsel, and Shri Dheeraj Tripathi, learned Deputy Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents State, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the Rules of 1966 are not applicable either to the members of the Border Security Force or the Central Reserve Police Force. The amendment in the Rules of 1966 vide notification dated 18.09.2002 brings the awardees of Police Medals for the act of gallantry to the members of the Indian Police Service, within the purview of the Rules of 1966. Even if the petitioners are residents of Rajasthan, that by itself would not make them entitled to the benefit of the Rules of 1966.
10. Record of the case reveals that husband of petitioner in Writ Petition 9716/2007 was awarded Police Medal for gallantry by the President of India as evidenced by notification dated 19.12.1972 published in the Gazette of India dated 06.01.1973. Petitioner in writ petition 9813/2007 was awarded Police Medal for gallantry, which is also proved by gazette notification dated 20.05.2005. They were awarded Police Medals for gallantry for the act of bravery and thus they are holders of gallantry awards. 'Police Medal of President for Gallantry' and 'Police Medal for Gallantry' have been by insertion of Clauses (k) and (l), respectively, included in sub-rule (i) of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1966. Therefore, those who have been awarded 'Police Medal for Gallantry' will also be covered within the purview of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1966. Cash reward and land allotment cannot be restricted to only such awardees, who are either members of the Indian Army or Indian Police Service posted in the State of Rajasthan. Indisputably, the husband of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9716/2007 and petitioner in Writ Petition No.9813/2007, in recognition to their act of bravery in the service of the nation, have won gallantry awards.
11. Rules of 1966 have been framed with a view to recognise and reward members of the defence services of the country, who have distinguished themselves by conspicuous acts of gallantry and are awarded gallantry decorations by the President of India. The respondents are interpreting the Rules of 1966 to mean that they are not applicable either to the members of the Border Security Force or the Central Reserve Police Force, whereas the rules do not expressly restrict such benefit to only members of Indian Army. Though, the Rules of 1966, as seen from its statement of objects and reasons, intended to cover the members of all defence services.
12. This very issue came up for consideration of this Court in Srikishan Sharma, supra. The petitioner in that case was not even a member of paramilitary force. The petitioner in that case was driver of the train of the Indian Railways that carried vital supplies for the Jawans fighting in enemy territory during Indo-Pak war of 1971. The train while performing shunting at Khakharpar (Pakistan) faced repeated bombing and startling attacks by enemy air-crafts causing considerable damage to a large number of coaches and trail-borne tanks. The petitioner stuck to his post undeterred and continued to perform his duties even during these attacks and succeeded in removing the train to a safe distance and also completed the placement of water tanks and other wagons containing vital supplies before backing his train to Munabao (India). His Excellency the President of India looking to the commendable courage and exemplary sense of duty awarded gallantry decoration "Shaurya Chakra" to petitioner Srikishan Sharma. When he was, in similar circumstances, denied allotment of land under the Rules of 1966, this court in Para 7 to 10 of the judgment held as under:-
"7. In precise the issue that requires adjudication is application of the Rules of 1996 for a "gallantry award holder" who is neither a member of defence service nor enrolled with police services.
8. As per Rule 7 of the Rules a holder of gallantry award or his heirs are entitled of cash reward and grand of land. The Rules nowhere refer of make the grant dependent to defence or police service. As a matter of fact the term "defence service" is not used in entire set of Rules except in preface. The preface is not part of the Rules, and therefore, it cannot be regarded as an independent source of any substantive power or express provision in the Rules or by implication there from. The Rules nowhere prohibit for grant or reward and land to a gallantry award holder who is otherwise eligible but not a member of defence service. Te State Government, therefore, wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner under the Rules of 1996.
9. Though the petition for writ could have been accepted on basis of the discussion as above, however, it is asserted by learned Dy. Govt. Advocate that the Rules of 1996are to be interpreted in light of the intention of the Legislature as reflected in preface and according to that the only object of the Rules is to award cash and land to members of defence service.
"10. The term "defence service" is neither interpreted under the Act of 1956 nor is defined under the Rules but it is certainly used in preface. It is a known law of interpretation that every word and sentence used must have some meaning and at the same time it is also well established that if a word or sentence purporting to express a subordinate idea clashed with principal idea the former must adjusted to the later or must be disregarded altogether and if there is irreconcilable contradiction between the two provisions having equal force, the provision more in accordance with the equity should be adopted. As stated above the term "members of defence service" is not used in the Rules of 1996but is used only in its preface and that is also not defined under the Act of 1956as well as under the Rules of 1966. The terms "gallantry award" and "holder of gallantry award" are defined under the Rules of 1966. The cash award and grant of land also relates to these terms under Rule 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the Rules of 1996. It is pertinent to note here that the gallantry awards referred in sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Rules are instituted by the President of India to acknowledge outstanding courage and bravery of the persons participating in war. Participation of a person in a war is not dependent to the employment or enrolment with military or police service. The grant of gallantry award is recognition of outstanding courage and bravery and object of the Rules is to award such recognition. The principal object of the Rules, therefore, is to award and felicitate the gallantry award holders. It is well known that during war beside the members of defence service people belonging to different discipline of life actively participate and exhibit outstanding courage bravery and sacrifice. The interpretation of the Rules of 1996 put forward on behalf of the State Government as a matter of fact shall frustrate the object of the Rules, that is to reward the persons with conspicuous acts of gallantry and are awarded gallantry decorations by the President of India. In the present matter the petitioner though was not a member of defence service (the term only used for military service) but he certainly participated in a defence action and his participation was not only acknowledged but was rewarded by none else than the President of India by decorating him with "Shaurya Chakra". What it appears that the term "members of the defence service" in preface of the Rules of 1996 virtually means the members who participated in defence action. Thus, the petitioner being a person who participated in defence action is having entitlement to be dealt with as per the Rules 1996."
13. Aforesaid judgment was delivered on 10.10.2007, but it appears that amendment notification dated 18.09.2002 was not brought to the notice of the court. Vide notification dated 18.09.2002 the Rules of 1966 were amended to include awardees of 'Police Medal of the President of India for gallantry' by insertion of Clause (k) and 'Police Medal for gallantry' by insertion of Clause (l) of Rule 2(i) of the Rules of 1966. Section 2(iii) was substituted vide notification dated 17.12.1989, which defines the word Shaurya award holder to mean a person, who has been awarded gallantry award and who is resident of Rajasthan and resided in Rajasthan or who is the Indian citizen and who has been awarded gallantry award for the bravery act during fight in the battle field in Rajasthan.
14. In so far as phraseology "defence service" is concerned, according to interpretation placed by the respondents thereto, based on preamble of the Rules, it only means the members of the Indian army. But, rigor of that Rule has been somewhat relaxed by its amendment because even the members of the police service have been included within the purview of the Rules of 1966. Effect of amendment of the rules is that now even the members of the police service on receiving Police Medal have been considered for cash reward or allotment of land in the Rule of 1966. Their inclusion in the purview of the Rules, thus, is based on recognition of the fact of their role in 'defence service' to the nation. Therefore, there is no reason why the members of the paramilitary forces, namely, Border Security Force and the Central Reserve Police Force, whose duties are analogous to that of military forces and who stands on slightly higher pedestal than the police, should not be considered for cash reward and allotment of land under the Rules of 1966 in lieu of their exemplary service to the nation recognised by His Excellency the President of India by awarding them the 'Police Medal of the President for gallantry' and, if necessary, by suitably amending the Rules of 1966, as already recommended by the Colonisation Commissioner in that behalf in the year 2007. This is because the implementation of the Rules in the present form has resulted in discriminatory treatment to the members of the paramilitary forces like Border Security Force and Central Reserve Police Force, even though their act of gallantry cannot in any way be underestimated. Awardees of the President's Police Medal, who are otherwise similarly situate, have to be placed at par and treated alike. Action of the respondents thus violates petitioners' fundamental right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15. In the result, both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The orders/letters dated 27.05.2004 (Annexure-5 in Writ Petition No.9716/2007) and 17.02.2007 (Annexure-6 in Writ Petition No.9813/2007) are quashed and set aside as being illegal. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for cash reward and allotment of land as per the Rules of 1966 within a period of four months from the date copy of this order is produced before them.
Both writ petition allowed.