of M.P. & Anr Vs. Devkinandan Maheshwari
 Insc 47 (3
Babu, Brijesh Kumar & G.P.Mathur.
out of SLP (C) No.18395/00) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2003 @ SLP (C)
No.18396/2000, SLP (C) No.21431/01, SLP (C) .CC 7315/02 BRIJESH KUMAR, J.
condoned in S.L.P (cc) 7315/02.
granted in all Special Leave Petitions.
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 in stead of from the date of order of the sanction of the pension.
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 respondent - Avadesh Prasad Shukla had come out with a case that he
had jumped into the national movement while he was aged 12 years only and had
to be underground in the given circumstances then prevailing.
High Court has discussed the facts in detail and has believed the evidence
which was furnished by the respondent and on the basis of the same it has been
categorically found that he was legitimately entitled to the pension under the
Rules. As observed earlier, we find no justification to interfere with that
main question of law as raised, common to all the appeals, is as to whether the
respondents are entitled to claim pension (Samman Nidhi) under the M.P.Rules,
1972 from the date of application or from the date of sanction of the pension?
The High Court in all the cases relying upon a decision of this Court reported
in 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC P.2, was payable with effect from the date of
application and not from the date of order sanctioning the pension. The case of
the appellants is that the decision in the case of Mukundlal Bhandari (supra)
would not be applicable to the cases governed by the M.P.Rules, 1972. The
submission is that Mukundlal Bhandari's case (supra) was decided in relation to
the Central Pension Rules whereas the M.P.Rules, 1972 have different provisions
more particularly after the amendment effected by adding Clause (6) in Rule 3
of the Rules. The amendment was given effect to since the commencement of the
Rules. It reads as under:
Freedom Fighter will be entitled to claim the benefits of Samman Nidhi from the
date of passing the order.
amendment shall come into force from the date of commencement of the said
rules." The different Division Benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
and learned Single Judges whose decisions have been impugned in the instant
appeals, have squarely relied upon the decision in the case of Mukundlal Bhandari
(supra). It appears that the question before this Court in the above noted case
was as to whether the pension was payable with effect from the date of the
order or from the date of the application and further if it could be payable
from any date earlier to the date of the application. It was held that pension
was liable to be paid with effect from the date of the application. The case of
Mukundlal Bhandari (supra) relates to the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972
introduced by the Government of India. Apparently there does not seem to be any
provision in the Central Govt. Rules particularly providing any date with
effect from which pension would be payable. It is, therefore, submitted on
behalf of the appellants that the position would be different for the cases
covered by the M.P.Rules,1972.
appears that in some cases, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that pension
would be payable with effect from the date of order in view of the amended Rule
3(6) of the M.P.Rules, 1972. One of such decisions has been placed on record by
the appellant (in S.L.P.(C) No.18395 of 2000).
a Division Bench decision dated 28.9.1999 in Anand Bihari & Anr. This judgment
does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judges
and the Division Benches whose orders have been impugned in the present
appeals. Since there have been conflicting decisions of different benches, the
matter was referred to a Full Bench later in Writ Petition No.1317 of 1998, Jagannath
been decided on 16.02.2001. The Full Bench held that the decision in the case
of Mukundlal Bhandari (supra) would not be applicable to the cases governed by
the M.P.Rules, 1972.
question referred to the Full Bench was to the following effect:
a Freedom Fighter is entitled to pension from the date of order and the rules
amended on 8th March,
1999, will have
prospective or retrospective effect?"
above question has been answered as follows:
the answer to the question referred to is that the Freedom Fighter is entitled
to pension from the date of order and not from the date of application, and
further that the rules amended on 8th March, 1999, will have retrospective and not prospective effect."
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 later the Full Bench decision in the case of Jagannath
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.
result, the appeals are allowed in part and the judgment and orders impugned in
all the above noted appeals are set aside only to the extent they provided that
pension shall be payable with effect from the date of application. Costs easy.