[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Vimla Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11437
1 WP-11304-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11304 of 2019
SMT VIMLA DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Hardayesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Kumar Parasar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"1. That, the respondent be directed to release the pension of the
petitioner from the Month of April 2014 to November 2017 which
has been held up by them vide Annexure P/2 while the entire
relevant papers has been submitted before him for that period.
2. That, the cost of the litigation may also be awarded.
3. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts
and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the
petitioner."
The case of the petitioner is that she is entitled to receive pension
under the provisions of the M.P. Nirashriton Avam Nirdhan Vyaktiyon Ki
Sahayta Adhiniyam, 1970, as amended by the Amendment Ordinance, 2006.
It has been submitted that the petitioner was initially granted pension by the
competent authority, however, the same was discontinued on account of a
change in her address. It is further contended that earlier, by order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11437
2 WP-11304-2019
05.03.2008 passed in W.P. No. 4079/2006, this Court had directed
restoration of her pension, pursuant to which payments were resumed.
However, the respondents again failed to release the pension for the period
from April 2014 to November 2017, though the pension has been regularly
paid thereafter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason assigned by
the respondents for withholding the pension, as reflected in order dated
30.12.2017 (Annexure P/2), is non-submission of certain documents such as
Samagra ID, ration card, and voter ID. It is contended that all requisite
documents had, in fact, been duly submitted by the petitioner. Attention has
been drawn to communication dated 19.01.2018 (Annexure P/3), issued by
the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Bhind, wherein it has been
expressly acknowledged that the petitioner has furnished all necessary
documents and, consequently, pension has been released from January 2018
onwards. Despite this admission, the pension for the intervening period from
April 2014 to November 2017 has not been paid.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed
the petition and prayed for its rejection.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
It is evident that the competent authority itself has acknowledged,
through its communication dated 19.01.2018, that the petitioner had
submitted all relevant documents. Once such compliance stood established,
there remained no justification for withholding the pension for the aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11437
3 WP-11304-2019
period. The action of the respondents in denying the pension to the petitioner
for the period from April 2014 to November 2017 is, therefore, arbitrary and
unsustainable in law.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the
age and condition of the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot
be deprived of her legitimate entitlement on technical or administrative
grounds, especially when the authorities themselves have admitted receipt of
all requisite documents.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit her life certificate
before respondent No. 4. Upon receipt of the same, respondent No. 4 shall
forthwith release the pension due to the petitioner for the period from April
2014 to November 2017.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
