- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of M.P And Another v. Devkinandan Maheshwari .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondents in these consolidated appeals are freedom fighters who applied for and were sanctioned pension under the M.P. Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (“M.P. Rules, 1972”). The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the pension was payable from the date of each respondent’s application, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2, which interpreted the Central Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. Aggrieved by the High Court’s direction on the effective date of pension payments, the State of Madhya Pradesh sought special leave. The Supreme Court condoned the delay, granted leave, and heard the matter on the merits.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court’s finding that each respondent was entitled to pension under the M.P. Rules, 1972.
- Whether, under the M.P. Rules, 1972 (as amended by insertion of Rule 3(6)), pension is payable from (a) the date of the freedom fighter’s application, or (b) the date on which the competent authority sanctions the pension.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh)
- Inapplicability of Mukund Lal Bhandari: The Central-scheme precedent applies only where the governing rules are silent; the M.P. Rules, 1972 now expressly address the commencement date.
- Effect of Rule 3(6): The 1999 amendment inserted Rule 3(6), stipulating that a freedom fighter “will be entitled to claim the benefits of samman nidhi from the date of passing the order,” and the amendment was made retrospective to the commencement of the Rules.
Respondents (Freedom-fighter pensioners)
- Relied on Mukund Lal Bhandari to contend that, as freedom-fighter pensions are welfare measures, payment should begin from the application date.
- Urged that any restrictive amendment should operate prospectively, not to their prejudice.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 | Pension under the Central Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 is payable from the date of application when the scheme is silent on commencement date. | Distinguished; held inapplicable because the M.P. Rules, 1972 contain an explicit commencement provision (Rule 3(6)). |
| State of M.P. v. Anand Bihari, (2000) 1 MPLJ 130 (DB) | Interpreted amended Rule 3(6) to mean pension is payable from the date of sanction. | Cited with approval as correctly stating the law under the M.P. Rules, 1972. |
| Jagannath Prasad v. State of M.P., (2001) 2 MPLJ 542 (FB) | Full Bench reaffirmed that amended Rule 3(6) applies retrospectively and fixes the commencement date at the order of sanction. | Followed; Supreme Court adopted the Full Bench’s reasoning to overturn the impugned High Court orders. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court first declined to disturb the High Court’s finding that the respondents qualified for pension; the factual determinations supporting eligibility were “duly considered” and justified.
The Court then addressed the core legal question—the operative date of pension payments—and proceeded as follows:
- Noted that Mukund Lal Bhandari concerned the Central scheme, which lacked an express provision regarding commencement, prompting this Court to rule in favour of the application date.
- Observed that the M.P. Rules, 1972 were amended (Rule 3(6)) to state unequivocally that “Freedom fighter will be entitled to claim the benefits of samman nidhi from the date of passing the order,” and that the amendment was made retrospective.
- Relied on the Division Bench decision in Anand Bihari and the Full Bench decision in Jagannath Prasad, both of which held that Rule 3(6) governs and that pension accrues only from the sanction date.
- Concluded that the High Court orders—resting solely on Mukund Lal Bhandari without considering Rule 3(6)—were legally unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Appeals allowed in part. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s direction that pension be paid from the date of application; instead, pension is payable only from the date of the sanction order. The respondents’ entitlement to pension per se remains undisturbed.
Implications: The judgment clarifies that freedom-fighter pensions governed by the M.P. Rules, 1972 commence on the date of sanction, not application, and that precedents interpreting the Central scheme are inapplicable where the State rules expressly specify a commencement date. No new constitutional principle is announced, but uniformity in pension administration under the M.P. scheme is ensured.
Brijesh Kumar, J.— Delay condoned in SLP (C) No. … CC No. 7315 of 2002. Leave granted in all special leave petitions.
2. In all the abovenoted cases, the respondents have been sanctioned pension under the M.P Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (for short “the M.P Rules, 1972”). The State of Madhya Pradesh has however, come up against the judgment of the High Court providing for payment of the pension with effect from the date of application instead of from the date of order of the sanction of the pension.
3. So far as the question of grant of pension to the respondents under the abovesaid Rules is concerned, we do not think that any case is made out to interfere with that part of the order. The facts stand duly considered and it has been found that the respondents in the abovenoted appeals were entitled to the pension under the Rules. In the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition CC No. 7315 of 2002, learned State Counsel has specifically drawn our attention to the fact that the respondent Avadesh Prasad Shukla had come out with a case that he had jumped into the national movement while he was aged 12 years only and had to be underground in the given circumstances then prevailing. The High Court has discussed the facts in detail and has believed the evidence which was furnished by the respondent and on the basis of the same, it has been categorically found that he was legitimately entitled to the pension under the Rules. As observed earlier, we find no justification to interfere with that finding.
4. The main question of law as raised, common to all the appeals, is as to whether the respondents are entitled to claim pension (samman nidhi) under the M.P Rules, 1972 from the date of application or from the date of sanction of the pension. The High Court in all the cases relying upon a decision of this Court reported in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 held that pension was payable with effect from the date of application and not from the date of order sanctioning the pension. The case of the appellants is that the decision in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 would not be applicable to the cases governed by the M.P Rules, 1972. The submission is that Mukund Lal Bhandari case 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 was decided in relation to the Central Pension Rules whereas the M.P Rules, 1972 have different provisions more particularly after the amendment effected by adding clause (6) in Rule 3 of the Rules. The amendment was given effect to since the commencement of the Rules. It reads as under:
“(6) Freedom fighter will be entitled to claim the benefits of samman nidhi from the date of passing the order.
This amendment shall come into force from the date of commencement of the said Rules.”
The different Division Benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and learned Single Judges whose decisions have been impugned in the instant appeals, have squarely relied upon the decision in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2. It appears that the question before this Court in the abovenoted case was as to whether the pension was payable with effect from the date of the order or from the date of the application and further if it could be payable from any date earlier to the date of the application. It was held that pension was liable to be paid with effect from the date of the application. The case of Mukund Lal Bhandari 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 relates to the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 introduced by the Government of India. Apparently, there does not seem to be any provision in the Central Government Rules particularly providing any date with effect from which pension would be payable. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the appellants that the position would be different for the cases covered by the M.P Rules, 1972.
5. It appears that in some cases, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that pension would be payable with effect from the date of order in view of the amended Rule 3(6) of the M.P Rules, 1972. One of such decisions has been placed on record by the appellant [in SLP (C) No. 18395 of 2000]. It is a Division Bench decision dated 28-9-1999 in State of M.P v. Anand Bihari (2000) 1 MPLJ 130 (DB). This judgment does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judges and the Division Benches whose orders have been impugned in the present appeals. Since there have been conflicting decisions of different Benches, the matter was referred to a Full Bench later in Jagannath Prasad v. State of M.P (2001) 2 MPLJ 542 (FB) which has been decided on 16-2-2001. The Full Bench held that the decision in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 would not be applicable to the cases governed by the M.P Rules, 1972.
6. The question referred to the Full Bench was to the following effect:
“Whether a freedom fighter is entitled to pension from the date of order and the Rules amended on 8-3-1999, will have prospective or retrospective effect.”
7. The above question has been answered as follows:
“Consequently, the answer to the question referred to is that the freedom fighter is entitled to pension from the date of order and not from the date of application, and further that the Rules amended on 8-3-1999, will have retrospective and not prospective effect.”
8. In our view, the decision in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 will have no application to the cases where pension has been sanctioned and payment is made under the provisions of the M.P Rules, 1972. This Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 had taken the view that pension would be payable with effect from the date of application in absence of any such rule providing as to from which particular date the pension would be payable. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of State of M.P v. Anand Bihari (2000) 1 MPLJ 130 (DB) and later the Full Bench decision in the case of Jagannath Prasad v. State of M.P (2001) 2 MPLJ 542 (FB) has rightly found that the decision in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 is distinguishable and would not be applicable to the present case. The orders passed by the High Court under challenge in these appeals squarely relying upon the decision in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2, in our view, are not sustainable and they are liable to be set aside.
9. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part and the judgment and orders impugned in all the abovenoted appeals are set aside only to the extent they provided that pension shall be payable with effect from the date of application. Costs easy.
Alert