Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 WA-679-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WA-679-2021
(MOHAN SINGH THAKUR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 01-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Per: Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri B.D.Singh, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
The present intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of the M.P.
Uchcha Nayalaya (Khand Nayapeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005 against
the order dated 28.08.2019 passed in the Review Petition No.1374/2018
arising out of the judgment dated 24.08.2017 passed in W.P.No.2310/2016
whereby the review and writ petition filed by the appellant have been
dismissed.
The facts in short are that the appellant is 96 years old and claims to be
a renowned Freedom Fighter, residing in District -Tikamgarh. According to
him, he has participated in the freedom struggle and has remained in jail from
13.4.1941 to 13.10.1941 at Tikamgarh jail and from 30.10.1942 to 31.4.1943
at Jhansi Jail. He was declared absconder. He had participated in various
freedom movements and was declared as political criminal. The appellant,
preferred Writ Petition No.2310/2016, challenging the order dated 28.3.2014
and also order dated 28.12.2015, passed by Respondent No.1, whereby the
claim of the appellant for grant of 'Samman Nidhi' under the M.P. Swantrata
Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi, Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules
of 1972' for brevity), w.e.f. 18.10.1993, i.e. date.of initial rejection, was
turned down.
The appellant has contended that, he has been fighting for the legitimate
claim of above freedom fighter pension since 1987 but his genuine claim was
rejected. Whereas, under similar circumstances, similarly situated persons
2 WA-679-2021
were granted. He relied upon the judgment dated 2.7.2013, passed in
W.P.No.2320/1996 (Sheel Chand Jain Vs. State of M.P. & others) ,
contending that, being a welfare legislation, enacted to grant honor to the
freedom fighters, he was also entitled for grant of the aforesaid freedom
fighter pension w.e.f. 18.10.1993 (i.e. from the date of initial rejection). But,
Respondents have granted the same w.e.f. 28.3.2014 i.e. from the date of
passing of the order, relying upon Rule 3(6) of Rules of 1972. The writ
petition has been dismissed recording the finding that the appellant has not
challenged the initial rejection order dated 18.10.1993 and therefore, the
judgment passed in the matter of Sheel Chand Jain (supra), would be
distinguishable on facts. The appellant filed review petition along with certain
documents and submitted that due to bonafide reasons because of his age
and struggling health conditions, aforesaid documents could not be produced
along with the writ petitions.
After enactment of the original Rules of 1972, relating to 'Samman
Nidhi', after collecting documents i.e. certificates dated 24.10.1985, 4.9.1986
& 24.11.1985, issued by the renowned freedom fighters of the district and
submitted application before the Respondents for grant of 'Samman Nidhi'.
Pursuant to above, vide letter dated 4.7.1988, Respondent No.2, asked the
appellant to file the relevant documents, thereafter, vide letter dated
28.12.1991, the appellant was directed to produce the self-attested copies of
certificates of imprisonment or participation in freedom movements issued by
aforementioned freedom fighters, despite the order dated 18.10.1993 was
passed by the respondents whereby the claim of the appellant was rejected on
the ground that the appellant could not prove that he remained underground
during freedom fighter movements. Before the appellant could challenge the
same, a policy decision was taken by the Respondent-State, whereby the
claims in regard to 'Samman Nidhi' of all freedom fighters, residing in District-
Tikamgarh, were directed to be reviewed again. Vide letter dated 23.6.1997,
issued by Respondent No.2, appellant was again asked to submit documents
3 WA-679-2021
relating to his residence, date of birth, address, dependents details, details of
the incidents, when appellant remained underground and participated in the
freedom fighter movements, certificate of then Police Authority relating to
underground period and in absence of the same, certificates issued by the
renowned freedom fighters of the district. Some other conditions were also
provided in the same. The appellant submitted the aforesaid documents along
with the application in the prescribed format.
The matter remained pending nearly one and half years and thereafter
appellant was served with letter dated 30.07.1999, whereby pointing some
defects in the application, appellant was asked to rectify the same by
7.8.1999, thereafter, appellant received copy of letter dated 29.10.1998.
The Respondent, whereby giving reference to some notification issued
by the State Government, directed the appellant to submit some clarification.
The said letter was forwarded by Respondent No.2, vide his letter dated
7.9.2000, to the Sub Divisional Officer, Tikamgarh, Jatara & Niwari, for
further enquiry. Pursuant to above, vide letter dated 27.11.2000, issued by the
Additional Tehsildar Jatara, appellant along with others was directed to
supply same information, which were already submitted by him earlier.
Considering above, by a detailed letter dated 8.3.2001, regarding the claim of
the appellant was forwarded by the Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.1,
annexing all the documents. Despite above, the genuine claim of the appellant
was again rejected vide order dated 2.2.2002. Again the claim of the petitioner
was forwarded by the In-charge Minister to the Collector by letter dated
25.01.2008. Thus, on the basis of the same, again the process for reviewing
the claim of appellant was started and by letter dated 24.10.2013, a certificate
in respect of unavailability of
record was forwarded by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.1. The
petitioner Mr. Sitaram Manav Dangi also participated in the freedom fighter
movements along with the appellant. His claim was also rejected thrice which
was challenged in W.P.No.2902/2012. The said petition was allowed by
4 WA-679-2021
judgment dated 2.4.2013 and the order was passed to grant 'Samman Nidhi'
from the date of initial rejection and the writ appeal against the said order was
dismissed by the Division Bench. It is only after 8.3.1999, the amendment in
Rules of 1972, Rule 3 (6) was brought, which provided that, the benefit of
'Samman Nidhi' shall be applicable from the date of sanctioned order. The
aforesaid amendment would not have any effect and impact on the claim of
the appellant, who was prosecuting the same since year 1986-87. On the basis
of same documents i.e. the certificates issued by the renowned freedom
fighters, the 'Records Unavailability Certificate' issued by Respondent No.2
and also the residence certificate issued by the local authority, the orders were
reviewed and the decision was taken on 28.3.2014 to grant 'Samman Nidhi'
from the date of the order was passed. The appellant sought to arrears and its
application with retrospective effects was rejected by order dated 28.12.2015
which was impugned in the writ petition.
The respondents' contention is that vide Gazette Notification dated
8.3.1999, The Rules of 1972 have been amended and Rule 3(6) has been
added to the aforesaid rules which clearly mentions that the incumbent would
be entitled to get benefit of 'Samman Nidhi' from the date of which such
order is passed and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled for grant of
'Samman Nidhi' from the initial date of rejection i.e 18.10.1993 and the
petitioner has been granted 'Samman Nidhi' on 28.03.2014.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned Single Judge has declined the claim of arrears of 'Samman
Nidhi' from the initial date of rejection i.e. 18.10.1993 mainly on the ground
that the petitioner has not challenged the said order and also on the ground of
Rule 3(6) of the Rules of 1972. Learned Single Judge has failed to consider
the entire history of the case wherefrom it is clear that the petitioner has been
continuously approaching the respondents for grant of 'Samman Nidhi'. The
respondents themselves by letter dated 23.06.1997 asked the appellant to
submit documents relating to his residence, date of birth and address,
5 WA-679-2021
dependents details on the basis of the policy decision of the State
Government whereby claims in regard to 'Samman Nidhi' of all freedom
fighters were directed to be reviewed again.
On the strength of aforesaid, the petitioner has again applied in the
prescribed format supported by all the necessary documents. The Rule 3(6)
has been amended vide Gazette Notification dated 8.3.1999 subsequent to the
case of the petitioner which was already pending with the respondents for one
or other reasons. The petitioner cannot deny the arrears of 'Samman Nidhi'
merely on the technical ground that he did not challenge the original rejection
order dated 18.10.1993 because in pursuant to the subsequent process of
reconsideration of the case, the representation of the petitioner was rejected
by order dated 28.12.2015. Thereafter, in the meantime, the State has already
granted 'Samman Nidhi' on 28.03.2014 from the date of the order.
In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to quash the impugned orders
dated 28.12.2015 and 28.03.2014 sanctioning the 'Samman Nidhi' from the
date of the order. It is directed that the petitioner would be entitled for
'Samman Nidhi' from the date of rejection order i.e. 18.10.1993. However, the
petitioner would not be entitled for any interest on the said amount. The
aforesaid arrears of 'Samman Nidhi' from the date of rejection dated
18.10.1993 shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from
the date of communication of the order.
With the aforesaid, the writ appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
anu
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANUPRIYA SHARMA
CHOUBEY
Date: 2021.09.06 16:14:45 IST
