SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(MP) 114

2001 (1) JLJ 327
(FULL BENCH)
S.P. Shrivastava, Dr. Maithli Sharan and S.S. Jha, JJ.
Jagannath Prasad v. State of M.P. and others
W.P. No. 1317 of 1998; on reference by Hon‘ble Justice S.S. Jha;
Decided on 16.2.2001.

Advocates:
R.D. Jain with S.K Jain for petitioner;
KK Lahoti, Addl. Advocate General for respondents.

Headnote:(1) Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (M.P.) -- rules -- have been framed under Art. 166 of the Constitution of India. [Para 8

       (2) Constitution of India -- Arts. 53(1), 154(1), 77(3) and 166(3) -- executive powers of President and Governor of State -- vest in them under Arts. 53(1) and 154(1) respectively -- these powers are exercised by them by making rules under Arts. 77(3) and 166(3) respectively. [Para 8

       (3) Constitution of India -- Arts. 77(3) and 166(3) -- rules framed under -- enjoy not only statutory but a constitutional recognition. [Para 8

       (4) Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (M.P.) -- R. 1 and 3(6) -- Samman Nidhi given under in form of pension -- it is honorarium simpliciter to honour Swatantrata Sangram Sainik -- Niyam do not create a vested right from very inception.

       True, the ‘Samman Nidhi‘, in the form of pension, is given under the ‘Niyam, 1972‘ but it is ‘honorarium‘ simpliciter to honour the Swatantrata Sangram Sainik, and it is not akin to the pension paid to a Government servant on superannuation, hence, it cannot go to create a vested right in the Swatantrata Sangram Sainik from the very inception of their corning into force. [Para 8

       (5) Constitution of India -- Arts. 77(3) and 166(3) -- rights of President and Governor to make rules of business under -- whether framed in accordance with law -- are open for adjudication. AIR 1967 SC 1145 followed. [Para 9

       (6) Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (M.P.) -- Rr. 3, 3(6) and 9 -- rules framed under -- are declaratory in nature -- the right remains merely a bare right until it is recognised -- amendment inserting subsection (6) in section 3 is valid.

       True, the ‘Niyam, 1972‘ are declaratory in nature and do clothe the Swatantrata Sangram Sainik with a right, but this right remains merely a bare right until it is protected and recognised by the authority concerned, i.e. the State. As soon as it is so recognised, it vests in the person concerned who is held to be entitled to have and, enjoy that right. Thus, there is a difference between a hare right, a vested right and entitlement to a right. Had it not been so, there would have been no requirement for moving an application in this regard under Niyam 9 of the ‘Niyam, 1972‘.

       Thus, though it is true that the amendment cannot take away any vested right, but then it is also true that the vesting takes place only from the date of entitlement, hence, before passing of the order granting ‘Samman Nidhi‘ the amendment could be brought about changing the course. AIR 1993 SC 2127 and 2000(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 214 distinguished. 2000 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 132 overruled. [Paras 11 & 12

       (7) Interpretation of Statutes -- statutes dealing with procedure -- are presumed to be retrospective -- intention of Legislature is to be ascertained from the statute itself -- statute dealing with substantive right cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect. AIR 1957 SC 540, (1994) 5 SCC 593 and AIR 1996 SC 238 followed. [Para 13

       (8) Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (M.P.) -- Rr. 3(6) and 9 -- provisions under the Niyam -- are vested as well as procedural -- amendment inserting S. 3 (6) -- is procedural and rightly made retrospectively.

       The nature of the provisions under the ‘Niyam, 1972‘ are both substantive and procedural: the rights given under it to the Swatantrata Sangram Sainik are substantive in nature while the procedure laid down for getting an order granting ‘Samman Nidhi‘ is procedural. The relevant amendment, in the instant case, is procedural in nature and, hence, it could be made retrospective, either by implication or by express provision. 2000 (1) MPLJ 130 and 2000 (I) MPWN 157 approved. [Paras 14 & 15

       Per S.P. Shrivastava, J. :-

       (9) Interpretation of Statutes -- provisions of statute creating public duties -- are directory -- those conferring private right -- are imperative. AIR 1952 SC 181 followed. [Para 10

       (10) Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (M.P.) -- R. 3(6) -- amendment as to grant of Sammon Nidhi from date of order -- is valid -- otherwise also no Nidhi could be paid till order to that effect is passed -- amendment cannot defeat benefit already accrued.

       The Rules in question framed in exercise of the jurisdiction envisaged under Article 166 of the Constitution contemplate conferring of the right to receive the "Samman Nidhi" on a Swatantrata Saneram Sainik and this conferment cannot be on a date anterior to the passing of the order in that regard. The scheme underlying the Rules does not contemplate conferring of such a private right either from the date of the enforcement of the Rules or from the date of the application. The ambiguity, if any, stands removed with the amendment expressly providing that the conferment of the "Samman Nidhi" will be only from the date of the order and not any anterior date. Giving of the retrospective effect to the amendment, however, cannot defeat a benefit which had already accrued to a Swatantrata Sangram Sainik before the date on which the amendment came into force. [Para 11

       (11) Constitution of India -- Arts. 14 and 16 -- rule seeking reversal of benefit granted or availed or from anterior date -- can be challenged being unreasonable or arbitrary. [Para 12

       (12) Interpretation of Statute -- mechanical approach to construction -- is out of step with the modern positive approach -- it is purposeful construction to effectuate object and purpose of the Act. JT 1991 (4) SC 500 followed. [Para 14

       (13) Statute -- dealing with substantive rights -- differs from a statute which relates to procedure or evidence or is declaratory in nature. (1994) 5 SCC 593 followed. [Para 22

       (14) Statute -- may in its operation be retrospective -- yet extent of its retrospective character need not extend to affect pending suits. AIR 1941 FC 16 relied on. [Para 14

       (15) Interpretation of Statute -- retrospective operation -- not contained in statute -- cannot apply in pending matters.

       In the absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to have retrospective operation, it cannot be so construed as to have the effect of altering the law affecting a claim in litigation at the time when it was passed. In order that the provisions of a statute dealing with substantive right may apply to pending proceedings, the Court has insisted that the law must speak in language which expressly or by clear intendment, takes in even pending matters. AIR 1957 SC 540, AIR 1966 SC 1423 and (1985) 1 SCC 270 followed. [Para 26

       (16) Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (M.P.) -- R. 3(6) -- sub-section (6) inserted on 8.3.1999 -- is valid -- Sam man Nidhi can be claimed from date of the order.

       A freedom-fighter (Swatantrata Sangram Sainik) as contemplated under the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972, is entitled to the "Samman Nidhi" from the date of the issue of the order by the State Government and the rule brought in force with effect from 8.3.1999, has to be given a retrospective effect but not so as to defeat a vested or accrued right. AIR 1993 SC 2127 and 2000 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 132 distinguished. 2000 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 214 overruled. [Paras 29 to 33

       U;k- Mk- eSFkhyh ‘kj.k ds vuqlkj %&

       ¼1½ Lora=rk laxzke lSfud lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 1972 ¼e-iz-½ && fu;e && Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuq- 166 ds v/khu fojfpr fd, x, gSaA ¿ iSjk 8

       ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 53¼1½] 154¼1½] 77¼3½ rFkk 166¼3½ && jk"Vªifr rFkk jkT; ds jkT;iky dh dk;Zikfyd ‘kfDr;k¡ && muesa Øe‘k% vuq- 53¼1½ rFkk 154¼1½ ds v/khu fufgr gksrh gSa && ;g ‘kfDr;k¡ muds }kjk Øe‘k% vuq- 77¼3½ rFkk 166¼3½ ds v/khu fu;e cuk dj iz;qDr dh tkrh gSaA ¿ iSjk 8

       ¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 77¼3½ rFkk 166¼3½ && ds v/khu fojfpr fu;e && dkuwuh gh ugha] vfirq lkafo/kkfud ekU;rkizkIr gSaA ¿ iSjk 8

       ¼4½ Lora=rk laxzke lSfud lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 1972 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 1 rFkk 3¼6½ && isU‘ku ds :i esa rn/khu nh xbZ ^^lEeku fuf/k** && Lora=rk laxzke lSfud ds lEeku esa ekusn; ek= gS && fu;eksa }kjk izkjaHk ls gh fufgr vf/kdkj l`ftr ugha gksrkA

       lR; gS fd isU‘ku ds :i esa ^lEeku fuf/k* ^fu;e] 1972* ds v/khu nh tkrh gS ijarq og Lora=rk lxzke lSfud ds lEeku esa ekuns; ek= gS rFkk og ljdkjh lsod dks vf/kof"kZrk ij lanÙk isU‘ku ds leku ugha gS] mlls fu;eksa ds izo`Ùk gksrs gh Lora=rk laxzke lSfud esa izkjaHk ls gh fufgr vf/kdkj l`ftr ugha gksrkA ¿ iSjk 8

       ¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 77¼3½ rFkk 166¼3½ && ds v/khu dkjckj ds fu;e cukus ds jk"Vªifr rFkk jkT;iky ds vf/kdkj && fu;e fof/k ds vuqlkj fojfpr vFkok ugha && U;k;fu.kZ;u fd;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 1145 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 9

       ¼6½ Lora=rk laxzke lSfud lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 1972 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 3] 3¼6½ rFkk 9 && ds v/khu fojfpr fu;e && ?kks"k.kkRed Lo:i ds gSa && ekU; fd, tkus rd vf/kdkj dsoy dksjk vf/kdkj jgrk gS && /kkjk 3 esa mi/kkjk ¼6½ var%LFkkfir djus dk la‘kks/ku fof/kekU; gSA

       lR; gS fd ^fu;e] 1972* ?kks"k.kkRed Lo:i dk gS rFkk blls Lora=rk laxzke lSfud dks vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrk] vfirq lac) izkf/kdj.k] vFkkZr~ jkT; }kjk lajf{kr rFkk ekU; gksus rd ;g vf/kdkj dsoy dksjk vf/kdkj jgrk gSA tSls gh bls ekU;rk izkIr gks tkrh gS] ;g O;fDr esa fufgr gks tkrk gS ftls ml vf/kdkj dks ikus dk rFkk mldk miHkksx djus dk gdnkj vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA vr%] dksjs vf/kdkj] fufgr vf/kdkj rFkk vf/kdkj dh gdnkjh esa QdZ gSA ;fn ,slk ugha gksrk rc ^fu;e] 1972* ds fu;e 9 ds v/khu bl ckjs esa vkosnu djus dh vis{k ugha gksrhA vr%] ;|fi ;g lR; gS fd la‘kks/ku }kjk fufgr vf/kdkj ugha Nhuk tk ldrk] rFkkfi ;g Hkh lR; gS fd og gdnkjh ds fnukad ls gh fufgr gksrk gS] blfy,] ^lEeku fuf/k* iznÙk djus dk vkns‘k ikfjr gksus ls iwoZ] vuqØe dks cnyus dk la‘kks/ku yk;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 2127 rFkk 2000¼2½ fof/k HkkLoj 214 izHksfnrA 2000¼2½ fof/k HkkLoj 132 myVk x;kA ¿ iSjk 11 ,oa 12

       ¼7½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && izfØ;k laca/kh dkuwu && Hkwry{kh gksus dh mi/kkj.kk dh tkrh gS && fo/kku eaMy dk vk‘k; Lo;a dkuwu ls vfHkfuf‘pr fd;k tkuk gksrk gS && lkjHkwr vf/kdkj laca/kh dkuwu && Hkwry{kh izHkko dh mi/kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 540] ¼1994½ 5 ,l lh lh 593 rFkk , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 238 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 13

       ¼8½ Lora=rk laxzke lSfud lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 1972 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 3¼6½ rFkk 9 && fu;e ds v/khu mica/k && fufgr gksus ds lkFk&lkFk izfØ;kRed gSa && /kkjk 3¼6½ var%LFkkfir djus dk la‘kks/ku && izfØ;kRed gS rFkk Bhd&gh Hkwry{kh fd;k x;k gSA

       ^fu;e] 1972* ds v/khu mica/kksa dk Lo:i lkjHkwr rFkk izfØ;kRed] nksuksa gSa( Lora=rk laxzke lSfud dks rn/khu iznÙk vf/kdkj lkjHkwr Lo:i ds gSa] tcfd ^lEeku fuf/k* iznÙk djus dk vkns‘k izkIr djus ds fy, vf/kdfFkr izfØ;k] izfØ;kRed gSA izLrqr ekeys esa] lqlaxr la‘kks/ku izfØ;kRed Lo:i dk gS vr%] bls] foo{kk }kjk vFkok Li"V }kjk] Hkwry{kh fd;k tk ldrk gSA 2000¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 130 rFkk 2000¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 157 vuqrksfnrA ¿ iSjk 14 ,oa 15

       U;k- ,l-ih- JhokLro ds vuqlkj %&

       ¼9½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && yksd drZO; l`ftr djus okys dkuwu ds mica/k && funs‘kkRed gksrs gSa && O;fDrxr vf/kdkj iznÙk djus okys dkuwu && vkKkid gksrs gSaA , vkb vkj 1952 ,l lh 181 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 10

       ¼10½ Lora=rk laxzke lSfud lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 1972 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 3¼6½ && vkns‘k ds fnukad ls lEeku fuf/k ds iznku ds ckjs esa la‘kks/ku && fof/kekU; gS && vU;Fkk Hkh] ml izHkko dk vkns‘k ikfjr gksus rd fuf/k lanÙk ugha dh tk ldrh && la‘kks/ku }kjk igys gh izksn~Hkwr Qk;nk foQy ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

       lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 166 ds v/khu ifjdfYir vf/kdkfjrk ds iz;ksx }kjk fojfpr iz‘uxr fu;eksa esa Lora=rk laxzke lSfud dks ^^lEeku fuf/k** izkIr djus ds vf/kdkj dk iznku vuq/;kr gS rFkk ;g iznku] ml ckjs esa vkns‘k ikfjr gksus ls iwoZ ds fnukad dks ugha gks ldrkA fu;eksa dh ewy ;kstuk esa ,sls O;fDrxr vf/kdkj dk iznku fu;eksa ds izorZu ds fnukad ls vFkok vkosnu ds fnukad ls vuq/;kr ugha gSA lafnX/kkFkZdrk] ;fn dksbZ gks] la‘kks/ku ds bl Li"V mica/k ls nwj gks tkrh gS fd ^^lEeku fuf/k** dk iznku dsoy vkns‘k ds fnukad ls gksxk] fdlh iwoZrj fnukad ls ughaA rFkkfi] la‘kks/ku dks Hkwry{kh izHkko nsus ls og Qk;nk foQy ugha gks ldrk tks la‘kks/ku ds izHkkoh gksus ds fnukad ls iwoZ Lora=rk laxzke lSfud dk izksn~Hkwr gks x;k FkkA ¿ iSjk 11

       ¼11½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 14 rFkk 16 && iwoZrj fnukad dks iznÙk vFkok mi;qDr Qk;ns dks myVus dh bZIlk dk fu;e && v;qfDr;qDr vFkok euekuk gksus dk vk{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¿iSjk 12

       ¼12½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && vFkkZUo;u ds izfr ;a=or~ :[k && vk/kqfud ldkjkRed :[k ls csesy gS && vf/kfu;e dk mn~ns‘; rFkk iz;kstu izHkkoh djuk vFkZiw.kZ vFkkZUo;u gSA ts Vh 1991 ¼4½ ,l lh 500 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 14

       ¼13½ dkuwu && lkjHkwr vf/kdkjksa ds ckjs esa && izfØ;k vFkok lk{; ls lacaf/kr vFkok ?kks"k.kkRed Lo:i ds dkuwu ls fHkUu gSA ¼1994½ 5 ,l lh lh 593 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 22

       ¼14½ dkuwu && izorZu Hkwry{kh gks ldrk gS && rFkkfi mlds Hkwry{kh Lo:i dh lhek] yafcr oknksa dks izHkkfor djus rd foLr`r djuk vko‘;d ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1941 ,Q lh 16 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 14

       ¼15½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && Hkwry{kh izorZu && dkuwu esa varfoZ"V ugha && yafcr ekeyksa dks ykxw ugha gks ldrkA

       vf/kfu;fer esa ,slk dqN Hkh vfo|eku gksus dh n‘kk esa ftlls nf‘kZr gks fd mldk izorZu Hkwry{kh gksxk] mldk vFkkZUo;u bl izHkko dk ugha fd;k tk ldrk ftlls mlds ikfjr gksus ds le; eqdnekxzLr nkok izHkkfor djus okyh fof/k ifjofrZr djus dk izHkko gksA lkjHkwr vf/kdkj ds ckjs esa dkuwu ds mica/k yafcr dk;Zokgh dks ykxw gksa] blds fy, U;k;ky; }kjk vkxzg fd;k x;k gS fd fof/k dh Hkk"kk ,slh gksuk pkfg, ftlls Li"Vr% vFkok lkQ vk‘k; }kjk yafcr ekeys Hkh O;kfIr esa vk,¡A , vkb vkj 1957 ,l lh 540] , vkb vkj 1966 ,l lh 1423 rFkk ¼1985½ 1 ,l lh lh 270 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 26

       ¼16½ Lora=rk laxzke lSfud lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 1972 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 3¼6½ && 8-3-1999 dks var%LFkkfir mik/kkjk ¼6½ && fof/kekU; gS && lEeku fuf/k dk nkok vkns‘k ds fnukad ls fd;k tk ldrk gSA

       e/; izns‘k Lora=rk laxzke lSfud lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 1972 ds v/khu ;Fkk vuq/;kr Lokra=~; lsukuh ¼Lora=rk laxzke lSfud½] jkT; ljdkj }kjk vkns‘k tkjh fd, tkus ds fnukad ls ^^lEeku fuf/k dk gdnkj gS rFkk 8-3-1999 ls izHkkoh fd, x, fu;e dks Hkwry{kh izHkko fn;k tkuk gksxk ijarq fdlh fufgr vFkok izksn~Hkwr vf/kdkj dks foQy djus ds fy, ughaA , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 2127 rFkk 2000¼2½ fof/k HkkLoj 132 izHksfnrA 2000¼2½ fof/k HkkLoj 124 myVk x;kA ¿iSjk 29 ls 33

ORDER

Per Dr. Sharan, J. -- 1. The following question arising in the case has been referred to the Full Bench :

"Whether a Freedom-lighter is entitled to pension from the date of the application or from the date of order and the rules amended on 8th March, 1999, will have prospective or retrospective effect ?"

2. The brief facts of the case, lying in a narrow compass and relevant to the decision of this case. are apt to he dilated hereunder: The petitioner filed Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) dated 11.3.1998, passed by the Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. or Madhya Pradesh, granting him 'Rajya Sam man Nidhi' under the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Niyam, 1972'). His further prayer, inter-alia, is for an appropriate direction to the respondents to make payments of 'Samman Nidhi' from the date of application. Succinctly, the grievance of the petitioner is that he should have been granted 'Samman Nidhi' from the date of his original application and not from the date of passing of the impugned order referred to above. When the case was being heard by one of us (Brother Shri S.S. Jha, J.), learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the pronouncement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1993 SC 2127, and two judgments rendered by the Division Benches of this Court, namely, Makhan Lal Ojha v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2000 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 214 and Smt. Kamlabai v. Union of India and others reported in 2000 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 132 = 2000 (3) MPLJ 376, had contended that the petitioner was entitled to be granted 'Samman Nidhi' from the date he moved an application in this regard and not from the elate of passing or the order. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate had drawn his attention to the pronouncement of another Division Bench or this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anand Bihari and others report ed in 2000 (1) MPLJ 130 and a Single Bench decision of this Court in Laxmi Chand v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2000 (I) MPWN 157 = 2000 (1) MPLJ 525, and argued that it is the date of the order and not the date of application which shall be decisive in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the crucial amendment dated 8th March, 1999, brought about in the 'Niyam, 1972' would have a prospective and not a retrospective operation. Considering the conflicting views taken by the two Division Benches of this Court in Makhan Lal Ojha's case (supra) on the one hand and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anand Bihari and another (supra) on the other, the learned Single Judge felt that the mailer required to he considered by the Full Bench and, therefore, he framed the question referred to above and ordered for placing the file before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench to decide the said question. Thus, this Full Bench is formed and the matter has been referred to it.

3. Shri R.D. Jain, learned Senior Advocate, counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. K. Lahoti, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents were heard at length. Learned counsel on both the sides placed their arguments circumscribing mainly on the manifest or otherwise conflict, if any, between the pronouncements of Hon'hle the Apex Court and the Division Benches or this Court referred to above. The 'Niyam, 1972' elucidating the mailer, manner and the steps to he taken, the relevant amendment dated 8th March, 1999, holding the field in this case, spelling out in unambiguous terms the intent in regard to its operation, and the other material available on record were also gone through.

4. Dilating on the objects and the rationale behind the formulation of the scheme for the benefit of the Swatantrata Sangram Sainik in 1972, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehe













































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top