Aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2015 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P. No.9439 of 2014 in directing grant of Samman Nidhi to the writ

1

Signed by: PREMSHANKAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 11/25/2023

12:15:19 PM

Signature Not Verified

petitioner w.e.f. 08.12.2000, the State is in appeal.

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 08.12.2000. The same runs opposite to the Larger Bench judgment

of this Court in the case of Sheel Chand Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and

another reported in 2010 (2) MPLJ 689 (FB). 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

08.12.2000. Thereafter, the same was challenged in W.P. No.12813 of 2007

which was disposed off on 08.10.2007. 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 19.01.2010 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 08.08.2013.

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 08.12.2000. 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

2

Signed by: PREMSHANKAR

MISHRA

Signing time: 11/25/2023

12:15:19 PM

Signature Not Verified

follows:-

"(i) The amendment made in Rule 3(6) of M.P. Swatantrata

Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 vide notification

dated 8.3.99 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 Govt. 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 08.12.2000.

Thereafter various litigations have ensued culminating in the rejection of the Writ

Appeal No.407 of 2010 on 08.08.2013. 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 08.12.2000. 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