ANIL KUMAR SOOD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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.

(2.) 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:-

(3.) 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.