Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 876 (MP)

Sunder Bai v. State of M. P.

2016-09-29

VIVEK RUSIA

body2016
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondents to grant freedom fighter pension from the year 1972 till filing of Writ Petition No.8831/2013. 2. Facts of the case are as under. Petitioner’s late husband Shri Manoharlal Pathak applied for freedom fighter pension under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Senani Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972. When the said application was not decided and he died petitioner being the wife of Shri Manoharlal Pathak pursued the application. That vide order dated 21.02.2013 the application for grant of Samman Nidhi was rejected by the Government. Petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.8831/2013 challenging the order dated 21.2.2013. Vide order dated 31.7.2013 the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside and the respondent was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner as per the rules and recommendation of the Collector, Ratlam within four weeks. When the aforesaid order was not complied within four weeks then contempt petition was filed which was registered as Contempt Petition No.873/13. Vide order dated 5.12.2013 the contempt petition was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to appear before the competent authority on 6.1.2013. 3. That vide order dated 22.1.2014 the application of the petitioner was allowed and direction was given to include the name of the husband of the petitioner in the list of freedom fighters and direction was also given to grant Samman Nidhi at the rate of 15,000/- per month. Now the petitioner approached this court alleging that her husband has applied for grant of Samman Nidhi in the year 1986 and thereafter the petitioner continuously pursued the said application, therefore, she is entitled for Samman Nidhi from the year 1972 when the rules called the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Senani Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 came into force. 4. Notice was issued and respondents filed a return in which it is submitted that petitioner has never produced any legal document relating to the period of custody of her husband. The document which has been filed are contradictory to each other regarding the period spent in the custody because of which the Collector, Ratlam has rejected the claim of the petitioner on 4.5.2013. Now vide order dated 22.1.2014 in pursuant to the direction given by this Court petitioner has been granted the benefit of Samman Nidhi. The document which has been filed are contradictory to each other regarding the period spent in the custody because of which the Collector, Ratlam has rejected the claim of the petitioner on 4.5.2013. Now vide order dated 22.1.2014 in pursuant to the direction given by this Court petitioner has been granted the benefit of Samman Nidhi. It is further directed that by way of amendment rule 3(6) has been brought and according to which freedom fighter would be entitled for Samman Nidhi from the date of passing of the order, hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. That rule 3(6) of the Niyam, 1972 provides for grant of Samman Nidhi from the date of passing of the order. The relevant rule is reproduced below: “3.(6) Freedom Fighter will be entitled to claim the benefits of Samman Nidhi from the date of passing the order.” This amendment shall come into force from the date of commencement of the said Rules. 6. The validity of the aforesaid rule came up for consideration before the Full Bench (five Judges) of this Court in the case of Sheel Chand Jain v. State of M.P and another, reported in 2011(1) JLJ 160 = 2010(2) MPLJ 689 . The Full Bench has held that rule 3(6) is a valid piece of legislation and can not be said to be ultra virus and the Freedom Fighters would be entitled to claim the benefit of Samman Nidhi from the date of sanction order would mean the date on which the order is passed by the State Government. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order is reproduced below : 15. Coming to question of delay in deciding complete application by the State Government, there is duty cast upon the Court to ensure that State Government does not unnecessarily prolong or delay the disposal of application for grant of Samman Nidhi and escape the liability to pay the amount to the incumbents having genuine claim. No doubt about it that a duty is cast upon the person also who has submitted an application to act with diligence and furnish all the documents in order to enable the State to take a final decision at an early date. There may be non-cooperation on part of the applicant which may result in uncessary delay. No doubt about it that a duty is cast upon the person also who has submitted an application to act with diligence and furnish all the documents in order to enable the State to take a final decision at an early date. There may be non-cooperation on part of the applicant which may result in uncessary delay. In case, there was any delay on part of the authority concerned in dealing with the matter that can be taken care of by the applicant obtaining appropriate direction from the High Court for expediting the enquiry, at the same time, State cannot sit idle as long as it chooses. The delay and laches have no room in adjudication process and there is bounden duty and a constitutional obligation as per mandate of Article 14 to decide the proceedings pending with urgency. To put in the words of Division Bench referring the matter “authority is under legal obligation to decide the proceedings pending for the purpose of providing benefit has to act with immediacy and not get into the hiberation and decide the fate of a claimant, who puts forth his claim as a freedom fighter, at his pleasure and leisure.” We are compelled to hold that State is bound to decide such applications within a reasonable time, and we have no hesitation in accepting the suggestion made by Division Bench that in future such applications should be decided within one year from the date of filing of complete application or from the date the application is completed. 16. Resultantly, we answer the reference as follows : (i)The amendment made in rule 3(6) of M.P Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 vide notification dated 8.3.1999 cannot be said to be ultra vires; (ii)The provision in rule 3(6) that freedom fighters will be entitled to claim the benefits of Samman Nidhi from the date of “sanction order” would also mean the date on which order is passed by the State Government rejecting the application in a case where such an order is set aside by the Court holding that Swatantrata Sangram Sainani would be entitled for pension; (iii) State is bound to decide such an application in future with promptitude, to say, within one year from the date an application is filed.” 7. While considering the issue of delay the Full Bench has held that the date of sanction order would also mean the date on which the order is passed by the State Government rejecting the application in a case where such an order is set aside and the Court holding that Swatantrata Sangram Sainani would be entitled for pension. In the present case vide order dated 21.2.2013 the application of the petitioner for Samman Nidhi was rejected by the competent authority which reads as under:- d`i;k dk;kZy;hu Vhe dk voyksdu gks LoŒ Jh euksgj yky ikBd dks jkT; lEeku fuf/k Lohd`r djus ckor gSA iwoZ esa ;g izdj.k nks ckj ekuuh; jkT;ea=h Lrj ij vLohd`r gks pqdk gS ¼ist uksV'khV 18] 27½] izdj.k esa dksbZ uohu rF; mifLFkr ugha gq, gSaA vkosnu esa ,d ekg dkjkokl dh vof/k crkbZ xbZ gS lkFkh Lora=rk lsukuh }kjk Ms<+ ekl dh vof/k crkbZ xbZ gSA dysDVj }kjk LoŒ Jh ikBd ds laca/k esa fdlh izdkj ds vfHkys[k LoŒ Jh euksgj yky ikBd fuoklh xzke xqMj[ksM+k] ftyk jryke dks lEeku fuf/k Lohd`r djus ckor iwoZ i`"Bkad ls gksuk ugha crk;k x;k gSa vr% iqu% vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA izeq[k lfpo egksn; ekŒ jkT;ea=h th ,lMh@& milfpo] e/;izns'k 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkxA 8. Petitioner h as challenged the same in Writ Petition No.8831/2013. Vide order dated 31.7.2013 this Court has set aside the order and the matter was remanded back to the competent authority for consideration. The competent authority vide order dated 22.1.2014 allowed the claim of the petitioner and directed to pay the Samman Nidhi at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Sheel Chand Jain (supra), petitioner would be entitled to get the Samman Nidhi from the date of rejection of the application i.e. 21.2.2013 because the said order was set aside in writ petition and by way of direction the case of the petitioner was reconsidered by the Government and finally the same was allowed, therefore, petitioner is held to be entitled to get the Samman Nidhi from 21.2.2013. 9. Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. Respondents are directed to grant Samman Nidhi from 21.2.2013 and arrears be paid within a period of sixty days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.