S.P.SRIVASTAVA, MAITHLI SHARAN, S.S.JHA
JAGGANATH PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
( 1 ) I agree on the matters dealt with in the elaborate judgment recorded by my learned brother Dr. Maithli Sharan, J. , which I have had the opportunity to read in draft which obviates the necessity of noticing or reviewing the case law referred to by him. I would, however, like to add a few observations of my own while concurring with the same.
( 2 ) IN order to provide a help to Swatantrata Sangram Sainik, the State Government through its General Administration Department had framed the rules known as Madhya Pradeh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972, which were published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) on 18-9-1972. 2a. Rule 3 of the aforesaid rules provides that the State Government will stand authorised to grant for life a monthly Samman Nidhi to the persons of the categories specified in that rule which included a Swatantrata Sangram Sainik, providing further that the 'samman Nidhi' could be payable only if the concerned person had been continuously residing from 1-11-1956 in the newly constituted State of Madhya Pradesh.
( 3 ) THE provisions contained in R. 9 of the aforesaid Rules require that a person seeking payment of
R.Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan
distinguished : Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India
referred to : Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur v. Dattatraya, Dahankar
M/s. Bijoya Lakshmi Cotton MillsLimited v. State of West Bengal
referred to : Laxmi Chand v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury
Lakxhmi Narayan Guin v. Niranjan Modak
Dattatraya Moreshwar v. State of Bombay
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.