Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 74
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Milind Ramesh Phadke, J.
Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of M.P.
Writ Petitions No. 8186 of 2013 and 6349 of 2014; Decided on 11.3.2025
Amit Lahoti for petitioners; Sohit Mishra, Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Headnote:
Loknayak Jai Prakash Narayan (MISA/DIR Rajnaitik Ya Samajik Karno Se Niruddh Vyakti) Samman Nidhi Niyam, 2008 -- Rr. 3(1) and 8 -- applicability of amendment -- application for samman nidhi filed after four months of enforcement of Act -- rejected -- representation against rejection decided one year after amendment of Act in 2012 -- petitioner held entitled to claim samman nidhi from date of decision in view of amendment -- not justified -- amendment prospective in nature -- applicable only to persons applying after date of notification of amendment -- aforesaid order set aside -- respondents directed to calculate arrears and pay same to petitioner within three months -- however, order of entitlement for Rs. 3,000/- per month from enforcement of Act till amendment as per earlier rule and for Rs. 10,000/- per month after amendment, valid. AIR 1983 SC 1143 and AIR 1990 SC 405 followed. [Paras 13 to 15]
y¨duk;d t; çdk'k ukjk;.k ¼ehlk@Mhvkbvkj jktuSfrd ;k lkekftd dkj.k¨a ls fu#) O;fä½ lEeku fufèk fu;e] 2008 & fu- 3¼1½ rFkk 8 & la'k¨èku ykxw g¨uk & vfèkfu;e d¢ çorZu d¢ pkj ekl i'pkr~ lEeku fufèk d¢ fy, vkosnu çLrqr fd;k x;k & ukeatwj & ukeatwjh d¢ fo#) vH;kosnu vfèkfu;e d¢ 2012 d¢ la'k¨èku d¢ i'pkr~ fofuf'pr fd;k x;k & la'k¨èku dh n`f"V ls ;kph fofuf'p; d¢ fnukad ls lEeku fufèk dk nkok djus dk gdnkj Bgjk;k x;k & U;k;¨fpr ugÈ & la'k¨èku dh çÑfr Òfo";y{kh & la'k¨èku dh vfèklwpuk d¢ fnukad d¢ i'pkr~ vkosnu djus okys O;fä;¨a dks gh ykxw & iwo¨Zä vkns'k vikLr & rhu ekl d¢ Òhrj cdk;k dh lax.kuk dj ;kph d¨ lank; djus dk çR;FkÊx.k d¨ funs'k & rFkkfi] iwoZorÊ fu;ekuqlkj vfèkfu;e d¢ çorZu ls la'k¨èku rd #i;s 3]000@& çfrekl rFkk la'k¨èku d¢ i'pkr~ #i;s 10]000@& çfrekl dh gdnkjh dk vkns'k fofèkekU;A ,vkbvkj 1983 ,llh 1143 rFkk ,vkbvkj 1990 ,llh 405 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 13 ls 15½
ORDER
This order shall also govern final disposal of Writ Petition No.6349 of 2014.]
1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2013 passed by the Under Secretary, GAD, Bhopal, Govt. of M.P. whereby he has been held entitled to claim Samman Nidhi under rule 3(1) of the Loknayak Jai Prakash Narayan (MISA/DIR Rajnaitik Ya Samajik Karno Se Niruddh Vyakti), Samman Nidhi Niyam, 2008, from the date of the order.
2. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2013 passed by respondent No.2/Collector & District Magistrate, Guna whereby without calculating actual parole period of the petitioner, he has been found entitled only for honorarium amounting to Rs.10,000/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/- as per amended rule 3 of the rules of Loknayak Jai Prakash Narayan (supra) vide Gazette Notification dated 4.1.2012.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been held entitled to such honorarium with effect from the date of the order passed by the Collector in terms of the Gazette Notification dated 4.1.2012 amending the 2008 rules and substituting the earlier Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 wherein the date of entitlement was mentioned as 1.4.2008 with effect from the date of the order passed by the District Magistrate/State Government, though this amendment was prospective and not retrospective.
4. It was further contended that admittedly, the petitioner being detained under MISA had submitted an application for grant of Samman Nidhi on 7.8.2008 before the Collector/District Magistrate, Guna, but the aforesaid application was rejected on 17.9.2009 thus, aggrieved the petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondent No.1/Princiapl Secretary, GAD, Govt. of M.P. on 27.10.2009 as per rule 8 of the rules of 2008 but the same was not considered for more than 04 years and in between, rules of 2008 were amended vide Gazette Notification dated 4.1.2012. Thereafter, on 4.2.2013, respondent No.1 had passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner was in detention under MISA from 23.2.1976 to 5.11.1976 including the period of parole and after excluding the period of parole, the detention period was less than 06 months and he has been found entitled for honorarium amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as per amended rule 3 of the rules of Loknayak Jai Prakash Narayan (supra) vide Gazette Notification dated 4.1.2012.
5. While placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matte of A.A. Calton v. the Director of Education & Another reported in AIR 1983 SC 1143, it was submitted that if proceedings were commenced prior to coming into force of amendment, the amendment will not have retrospective effect and amendment would not have any effect on the earlier proceedings.
6. Further while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. Mahendran & Ors. v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1990 SC 405, it was submitted that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect and unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective.
7. It was further submitted that since there is no law which bars counting of the period of custody/detention of the period of parole, therefore it is required to be counted, accordingly benefit, has to be given for detention of more than six months to the petitioner, as he remained under custody from 23.2.1976 till 5.11.1976.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, it was submitted that the impugned order dated 4.2.2013 and order dated 4.3.2013 to the extent of giving the Samman Nidhi at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of commencement of the rules i.e. w.e.f. 1.4.2008 as per rule 3 of the rules of 2008 may be modified and arrears whereof be al
