The rejection date of a claim is the effective date for benefits under the Samman Nidhi scheme, not subsequent orders.

ORDER :

Ravi Malimath, C. J.

Aggrieved by the order dated 6-1-2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 9439 of 2014 in directing grant of Samman Nidhi to the writ petitioner w.e.f. 8-12-2000, the State is in appeal.

2. The only contention being advanced by the Government Advocate is to the effect that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner was in November, 2013. However, the learned Single Judge has directed to grant the Samman Nidhi from 8-12-2000. The same runs opposite to the Larger Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sheel Chand Jain vs. State of M. P. and another, reported in 2010(2) M.P.L.J. (F.B.) 689. The same is disputed by the respondent.

3. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The question of merits of the grant of Samman Nidhi is not in dispute. What is in dispute is only the relevant date. The earlier application filed by the petitioner for grant of Samman Nidhi was rejected by the order of authorities dated 8-12-2000. Thereafter, the same was challenged in W. P. No. 12813 of 2007 which was disposed off on 8-10-2007. There was a direction to reconsider the application. The application was reconsidered and rejected. Thereafter the third writ petition was filed in W. P. No. 881 of 2008 which was allowed vide order dated 19-1-2010 directing the respondents to pass an order granting Samman Nidhi to the writ petitioner. Thereafter, Writ Appeal No. 407 of 2010 was preferred by the State, which was dismissed by the order dated 8-8-2013. Thereafter in compliance of the order, the appellants passed an order dated 11-11-2013 granting Samman Nidhi to the writ petitioner from November, 2013. Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition was filed. It was contended that the rejection of the plea of the petitioner was by the order dated 8-12-2000. The said contention was accepted. The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Sheel Chand Jain (supra) in para 16 of the judgment answered the reference as follows :—

“(i) The amendment made in Rule 3(6) of M. P. Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 vide notification dated 8-3-1999 cannot be said to be ultra vires;

(ii) The provision in Rule 3(6) that freedom fighters will be entitled to claim the benefits of Samman Nidhi from the date of “sanction order”, would also mean the date on which order is passed by the State Government rejecting the application in a case where such an order is set aside by the Court holding that Swatantrata Sangram Sainani would be entitled for pension;

(iii) State is bound to decide such an application in future with promptitude, to say, within one year from the date an application is filed.”

4. Therefore, what was held in the said judgment was to the effect that in terms of the provisions in Rule 3(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972, the freedom fighters would be entitled to claim the benefit of Samman Nidhi from the date of the sanction order would also mean the date on which the order is passed by the State Government rejecting the application. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the claim of writ petitioner was rejected by the order dated 8-12-2000. Thereafter various litigations have ensued culminating in the rejection of the Writ Appeal No. 407 of 2010 on 8-8-2013. Thereafter an order was passed by the State on 11-11-2013 to grant the benefits. On a reading of the judgment it is quite clear that the order of rejection is the date on which the Samman Nidhi is to be paid to the freedom fighters. It is undisputed that the first order rejecting the Samman Nidhi was passed on 8-12-2000. Therefore, that would become the relevant date. The contention of the Government Advocate that the subsequent order of grant of Samman Nidhi would be the relevant date, in our considered view, cannot be accepted. If that were to be so, in a given case as in this case also if the litigation protracts for decades together and ultimately an order is passed that w