Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 66 (MP)

LAXMI CHAND v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2000-01-19

S.P.SRIVASTAVA

body2000
S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner had submitted an application on 30th March, 1988 for the award of Samman Nidhi under the provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972. The State Government had passed an order on 22nd July, 1994 on the aforesaid application granting to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 750/- per month as Samman Nidhi. The aforesaid order was to become effective from the date of the issue of the said order. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the order awarding him the Samman Nidhi should have been made effective from the date of the submission of the application for the purpose and not from the date of issue of the order. ( 3 ) THE contesting respondents have opposed the writ petition and have filed a counter-affidavit/return denying the claim of the petitioner in regard to the entitlement to get the Samman Nidhi w. e. f. the date of filing of the application. In support of this submission the learned Government Advocate has placed reliance upon the amendment incorporated in the Rules of 1972, referred to hereinabove, which came into force, w. e. f. 8th of March, 1999 on which date it was published in the Gazette (Extraordinary ). The aforesaid amendment was made retrospective and was to be deemed to have been in force w. e. f. the date of the commencement of the Rules of 1972. The amendment in the Rules which was made effective from 8th March, 1999 is to the following effect :- ( 4 ) THE Legislature while incorporating the said rule had taken recourse to a fiction providing that the said rule shall be deemed to have been in force with effect from the date of enforcement of Madhya Pradesh Swatrantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972. This statutory fiction resulting from the deeming provision, referred to hereinabove, completely negatives the claim of the petitioner. This amendment which was given a retrospective effect, cannot be ignored. The impugned order in face of the aforesaid statutory fiction is not liable to be disturbed by this Court while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when in the writ petition no foundation has been laid challenging in any manner the aforesaid amendment incorporated in Rules of 1972 with retrospective effect. The impugned order in face of the aforesaid statutory fiction is not liable to be disturbed by this Court while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when in the writ petition no foundation has been laid challenging in any manner the aforesaid amendment incorporated in Rules of 1972 with retrospective effect. ( 5 ) IT may be noticed here that in similar circumstances a Division Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of State of M. P. v. Anand Bihari Letters Patent Appeal No. 167 of 1998 : (reported in 2000 (1) MPLJ 130 ) decided on 28-9-1999, had upheld the order granting "samman Nidhi" from the date of the issuance of the order and not from the date of the submission on the application taking into consideration the implications arising under the aforesaid amendment. ( 6 ) IN the aforesaid view of the matter no justifiable ground can be said to have been made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by the State Government. This writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. ( 7 ) THERE shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .