State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. Devkinandan Maheshwari

Appeal: Civil Appeal No. 858 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.18395/00)

With

Civil Appeal No. 859-861 of 2003
@ SLP (C) No.18396/2000, SLP (C) No.21431/01, SLP (C) ….CC ‘7315/02
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.1999 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP 461/99)

Petitioner: State of M.P. & Anr.

Respondent: Devkinandan Maheshwari

Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 858 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.18395/00)

With

Civil Appeal No. 859-861 of 2003
@ SLP (C) No.18396/2000, SLP (C) No.21431/01, SLP (C) ….CC ‘7315/02
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.1999 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP 461/99)

Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU, BRIJESH KUMAR & G.P. MATHUR, JJ.

Date of Judgment: Feb 03, 2003

Mr. B.S. Banthia, Mr. Sakesh Kumar, Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, Advocates with him for the Appellants.

Mr. Amlan Kumar Ghosh, Mr. P.K. Ghosh, Mr. D. Jha, Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Mr. Hemant Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, Mr. Prakash Srivastava, Advocates with him for the Respondents.

SOCIAL WELFARE LAWS

M.P. Swatantra Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 ( M. P. Rules)

Rule 3(6) – Pension payable to freedom fighters – Effect of amended Rule 3(6) – Whether pension is payable with effect from the date of order of sanction of pension or from the date of application. Held pension under the M.P. Rules is payable only with effect from the date of order sanctioning the pension and not from the date of application for grant of pension. Decision in Mukundlal Bhandari’s case JT 1993 (3) SC 342 has no application to cases where pension has been sanc-tioned under the M.P. Rules. Order and judgment passed by the High Court following the said decision therefore not sustainable.

In our view, the decision in the case of Mukundlal Bhandari (supra) will have no application to the cases where pension has been sanctioned and payment is made under the provisions of the M.P.Rules, 1972. This Court in the case of Mukundlal Bhandari (supra) had taken the view that pension would be payable with effect from the date of application in absence of any such rule providing as to from which particular date the pension would be payable. The division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anand Bihari (supra) and later the full bench decision in the case of Jagannath Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) has rightly found that the decision in the case of Mukundlal Bhandari (supra) is distinguishable and would not be applicable to the present case. The orders passed by the High Court under challenge in these appeals squarely relying upon the decision in the case of Mukundlal Bhandari (supra) which, in our view, are not sustainable and they are liable to be set aside. (Para 8)

1. Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India JT 1993 (3) SC 342 ; (1993) Suppl. 3 SCC 2 (Para 4)

BRIJESH KUMAR, J.
1. Delay condoned in S.L.P (C)…. (CC) 7315/02. Leave granted in all special leave petitions.
2. In all the above noted cases, the respondents have been sanctioned pension under the M.P.Swatantra Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (for short ‘the M.P.Rules, 1972’). The State of Madhya Pradesh has however, come up against the judgment of the High Court providing for payment of the pension with effect from the date of application instead of from the date of order of the sanction of the pension.
3. So far as the question of grant of pension to the respondents under the above said Rules is concerned, we do not think that any case is made out to interfere with that part of the order. The facts stand duly considered and it has been found that the respondents in the above noted appeals were entitled for the pension under the rules. In the appeal arising out of special leave petition CC No.7315 of 2002, learned State counsel has specifically drawn our attention to the fact that the