An amendment to a statute can be applied retrospectively to pending applications and lis, if it does not affect any vested rights.

S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the contesting respondent No. 1 and directing that he will be entitled to the pension awarded under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972, from the date of the application, the State as well as the Collector, District Gwalior have come up in this Letters Patent Appeal seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the impugned order.

2. We have heard the learned Govt. Advocate representing the State-appellants as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent/petitioner, and have carefully perused the record.

3. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass.

4. The petitioner/respondent No. 1 had submitted an application dated 10-3-1988 seeking Swatantrata Sainik Samman pension. The State Government vide its order dated 18-12-1991 sanctioned an amount of Rs. 400/-per month payable as Samman Nidhi to the petitioner/applicant during his life time under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Niyam, 1972) subject to the terms and conditions contained therein clearly providing that the pension will become payable from the date of the order.

5. The petitioner had filed the writ petition giving rise to this appeal challenging that part of the order passed by the State Government whereunder the pension sanctioned in his favour was to be payable from the date of the issuance of the order claiming that in the circumstances of the case since the application for pension had been filed in the year 1988 and the delay in the disposal of that application was attributable to the State Government itself, he should not be deprived of the pension amount for the period elapsing between the date of filing of the application and the date of the passing of the order granting the payment of pension.

6. The learned single Judge vide the impugned order being of the view that no reason had been given by the State Government as to why the pension was being released from the date of the issuance of the order, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 1993 SC 2127 and finding that the other decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Ganesh Chandra Dolai and Ors., reported in (1997) 10 SCC 289, was distinguishable on facts came to the conclusion that the petitioner ought to have been granted the pension from the date of the application filed by him and consequently issued the impugned direction.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that in the provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 an amendment was brought into effect vide the insertion of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules which was enforced with the publication of the amended rule in the Madhya Pradesh Extraordinary Gazette dated 8-3-1999.

8. The Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the aforesaid Niyam had been inserted with retrospective effect providing that Swatantrata Sangram Sainik would be entitled to the benefit of the Rajya Samman Nidhi with effect from the date of the order of sanction.

9. In view of the aforesaid amendment in the Niyam, 1972, the learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge deserved to be set aside.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No. 1 on the other hand has tried to assail the validity of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of Niyam, 1972 which stands inserted in the Rules by virtue of the amendment with retrospective effect.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent has tried to urge that the aforesaid sub-rule referred to hereinabove which has now been inserted is unreasonable and discrim