Back
RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Ghanshyam Sharma – Respondent
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.
The rejection date of a claim is the effective date for benefits under the Samman Nidhi scheme, not subsequent orders.
Eligibility for benefits under the Rules is determined by a constituted committee, and a party must directly challenge such decisions to seek judicial review.
The revised policy guidelines of 2014 cannot be applied retrospectively to deny relief to the petitioner, and the delay in processing the petitioner's application cannot be attributed to the petition....
The subsequent notification repealing the Niyam, 2008 was an attempt to nullify the earlier judgment and was not clarificatory. The State's decision-making process for repealing the Niyam, 2008 was f....
The absence of a final sanction order and express policy guidelines prohibit the grant of pension posthumously, irrespective of previous recommendations.
(1) Whether a particular applicant is entitled for pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of 1980, is a matter which is required to be considered having regard to facts and documentar....
The cancellation of the freedom fighter's pension was upheld due to insufficient evidence supporting the appellant's claims of participation in the freedom struggle.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
