Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Sood vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.1491/2014
(Anil Kumar Sood vs. State of M.P. & Anr.)
Gwalior, Dated : 06.02.2018
Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Sangeeta Pachauri, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents/State.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 15.2.2013 whereby the petitioner has been held entitled to claim Samman Nidhi under the provisions of Loknayak Jai Prakash Narayan (MISA/DIR Rajnaitik Ya Samajik Karno Se Niruddh Vyakti), Samman Nidhi Niyam, 2008. Petitioner's contention is that 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. It is petitioner's contention that this amendment is prospective and not retrospective. Petitioner's case was already pending consideration before the authorities and they had not considered it properly, as result petitioner who had made his first application on 4.8.2008 as is contained in Annexure P/5 but that was turned down by the District Magistrate, Guna vide order dated 24.2.2010 (Annexure P/6) and approved by the State Government vide order dated 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1491/2014 (Anil Kumar Sood vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) 24.7.2010, had filed Writ Petition No.6303/2010 which has been decided by the High Court on 19.6.2012. The High Court after considering various provisions contained in the Rules of 2008 held that annexures denying Samman Nidhi to the petitioner i.e. the order of the Collector and order of the State have not been passed after due and proper application of mind. Consequently, it had set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the Collector to examine the case and pass a fresh order within 45 days from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The High Court had also observed that authority shall not only pass a reasoned and speaking order but if the authorities come to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the Samman Nidhi, the same be paid to him from due date forthwith.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of P. Mahendran & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka as reported in AIR 1990 SC 405, wherein in para 5 the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. 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."3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1491/2014 (Anil Kumar Sood vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of A.A. Calton vs. The Director of Education & Anr. as reported in AIR 1983 SC 1143, wherein again it has been held that if proceedings were commenced prior to coming into force of amendment, amendment will not have retrospective effect and amendment would not have any effect on the earlier proceedings.
By placing reliance on such judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings to claim Samman Nidhi were initiated in the year 2008 itself and the orders of the Collector and the State Government have since been quashed by the High Court, the proceedings will relate back to the date of the application filed by the petitioner i.e. dated 4.8.2008 and, therefore, the amendment of 4.1.2012 will not be applicable to the case of the petitioner and then petitioner is entitled to claim this Samman Nidhi from 1.4.2008 as has been notified earlier while notifying the Rules of 2008 on 20.6.2008 and not from the date of the order of the Collector.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner and, therefore, he was not found entitled for extending the benefit of Samman Nidhi. She further submits that amendment in the rule as notified on 4.1.2012 have not been put to challenge by the 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1491/2014 (Anil Kumar Sood vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner had since moved an application after promulgation of amended Rules of 2012, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of Samman Nidhi w.e.f. 1.4.2008.
Respondents have though filed a return but neither in the return it is mentioned that on which date petitioner had applied for claiming Samman Nidhi nor any document has been enclosed along with the return to support the contention that petitioner had moved an application claiming Samman Nidhi after the amendment was incorporated in the Rules vide notification dated 4.1.2012. Therefore, in view of the fact that petitioner's case was duly considered by the Collector and rejected vide order dated 24.2.2010 and since that order has been quashed by the High Court in W.P.No.6303/2010, petitioner's entitlement is to be adjudged from the date of his making application i.e. 4.8.2008. Since the petitioner had made such application on 4.8.2008 and as per the parameters prescribed under Rules, petitioner has been found to be eligible for extending such benefit of Samman Nidhi. There is no iota of doubt that such entitlement will be from 1.4.2008 inasmuch as the date of the amendment is prospective in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of P. Mahendran & Ors. (supra) and A.A. Calton (supra), that amendment will be applicable only to those persons who applied for claim of such Samman 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.1491/2014 (Anil Kumar Sood vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) Nidhi after 4.1.2012. In view of the aforesaid, respondents are directed to calculate the arrears of Samman Nidhi and pay the same to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Thus, petition is allowed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Vivek Agarwal)
(alok) Judge
ALOK KUMAR
2018.02.07 10:42:52 +05'30'