ORDER
K.K. Lahoti, J.
1. This petition involves a small question in respect of petitioner’s entitlement for the Swatantrata Sangram Samman Nidhi under the State Rules from which date; date of order passed by the High Court or from the date when the authority passed its first order rejecting the claim of petitioner ?
2. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner is a Swatantrata Sangram Sainik within the definition as enumerated in M.P. Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred as ‘Niyam’ for short). The petitioner applied for Samman Nidhi under the aforesaid Niyam on 9-2-1995. This application was rejected by the State Government by order dated 10-6-1996 (Annexure P-10-A) and it is held that the petitioner is not freedom fighter and is not entitled for Samman Nidhi. This order of State Government was subject-matter in W.P. No. 287/1996 and it is held in Para 6:
“6……………. ……………….. …………….. …………… …………..
……………. ……………….. …………….. …………… …………..
……………. ……………….. …………….. …………… …………..
If the two certificates and the enquiry report of the Tehsildar, Katni are appreciated keeping in view the rule invoked it can safely be concluded that the petitioner meets the criteria of freedom fighter and is entitled to ‘Samman Nidhi’ as provided under the State Rules.”
This order in W.P. No. 287/1996 was further assailed by the petitioner before the Division Bench by filing L.P.A. No. 330/2000. The Division Bench considered the entitlement of petitioner for Samman Nidhi, held in Para 7 of the order that the petitioner is entitled to Samman Nidhi from 10-6-1996. For ready reference Para 1 of the order is being quoted :–
“The question for consideration is whether the petitioner should be entitled to the Freedom Fighters’ pension from 9-10-2000 or from 10-6-1996. The reason assigned by the learned Single Judge for allowing the pension to the petitioner from 9-10-2000 is that the petitioner challenged the action of the State Government belatedly. But this is not so. The inaction on the part of the State Government has been challenged by the petitioner on 22-1-1996 and the order dated 10-6-1996 has been passed during pendency of the writ petition (W.P. No. 287/96), therefore, it can not be said that the petitioner has come to the Court belatedly. Even otherwise, the facts disclose that the petitioner had been pursuing the claim from the beginning, but it was rejected on 10-6-1996. Therefore, the petitioner should be entitled to pension from 10-6-1996, without considering the validity of the amendment to the Pension Rules made by the State Government from March 8, 1999, whereby the Freedom Fighter has been deprived from getting the pension from the date of application, which has now been the law prevailing to the country. [See Mukund Lal Bhandari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1993 SC 2127)].”
3. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed S.L.P. against the aforesaid order. The case of petitioner was also heard along with other Special Leave Petitions by the Apex Court. Vide order dated 3rd February, 2003 [2003(2) M.P.H.T. 1 (SC)], the Apex Court held :–
“So far as the question of grant of pension to the respondents under the above said 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 above noted appeals were entitled for the pension under the rules. In the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition C.C. 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 had 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.”
“In the result, the appeals are allowed in part and the judgment and orders impugned in all the above noted appeals are set aside only to the extent they provided that pension shall be payable with effect from the date of application. Cost easy.”
Thereafter the State Government passed the order (Annexure P-5), by which it is directed that the petitioner is entitled for Samman Nidhi w.e.f, 2-1-2001 and the aforesaid order is in compliance of order passed by the Apex Court in S.L.P.
4. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the Division Bench after considering the entitlement of petitioner has recorded a finding that the petitioner is entitled for Samman Nidhi w.e.f. 10-6-1996. This date has been taken into consideration by the Division Bench because on this date the claim of petitioner was rejected for the first time by the State Government. Though the petitioner filed application for Samman Nidhi on 9-2-1995, but the petitioner is entitled for Samman Nidhi w.e.f. 10-6-1996, because the Niyam provides that the aforesaid Samman Nidhi shall be payable from the date of the order. The date of the order is 10-6-1996 when for the first lime claim of the petitioner was turned down by the State Government, but subsequently this order has been quashed by the High Court. So the date of order will be 10-6-1996 and petitioner is entitled for pension from 10-6-1996.
5. Learned Counsel for State has supported the order (Annexure P-5) and contended that the aforesaid order has been passed in compliance of the order passed by the Apex Court. The Apex Court considered in the judgment the entitlement of pensioners from the date of the order. The Apex Court held that the dictum of Mukundlal Bhandari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1993 SC 2127) will not be applicable in the cases governed by the M.P. Rules, 1972. The Division Bench has passed the order in L.P.A. relying upon the case of Mukundlal Bhandari (supra) and as per the Apex Court, the judgment of Mukundlal Bhandari (supra) is not applicable. And the State Government has rightly passed the order (Annexure P-5).
6. To consider the contention of both the parties relevant Niyam may be looked into, which 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.”
7. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the freedom fighter will be entitled to claim the benefit of Samman Nidhi from the date of the order, which may be passed by the authority. In this case the Division Bench has considered this aspect that the claim of petitioner was considered by the authority by order dated 10-6-1996. The aforesaid order was passed on wrong premises that the petitioner is not freedom fighter and has rejected the claim, while this order was reversed by the High Court in W.P. No. 287/1996 and Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 330/2000 while affirming the aforesaid finding recording the status of petitioner as freedom fighter and found entitled for Samman Nidhi from 10-6-1996. Though the Division Bench has relied on Mukundlal Bhandari (supra) but in fact the pension was not directed from the date of application, but from the date when the authority passed the order. If the authority would have found that the petitioner is freedom fighter as defined under the Niyam, then the date of order would have been 10-6-1996.
Aforesaid finding was based on wrong appreciation of fact, and the order was reversed by the High Court in Writ Petition. If the State Government would have considered the matter in right perspective, then the petitioner was entitled for Samman Nidhi w.e.f. 10-6-1996. Apart from this the Division Bench after considering the aforesaid position has directed that the petitioner is entitled for Samman Nidhi w.e.f. 10-6-1996. Though the reliance on Mukundlal Bhandari (supra), has not been approved by the Apex Court, but the fact remains that the Division Bench has not allowed the Samman Nidhi from the date of application, but allowed the Samman Nidhi w.e.f. the date when the authority has passed the order. For all purposes the date of applicability of the order as per Niyam will be the date when for the first time the authority has passed the order. The Apex Court in the judgment has specifically directed that the judgment and orders in which the freedom fighter has been found entitled for Samman Nidhi w.e.f. the date of application, was set aside, but other orders in which the freedom fighter was directed to be paid the Samman Nidhi from the date of order was not quashed. The order of Division Bench in this respect has not been set aside by the Apex Court. On the contrary the Apex Court has affirmed the status of petitioner as freedom fighter and has found that under the M.P. Rules, 1972 the petitioner is entitled for Samman Nidhi. The Apex Court has not interfered in the order of Division Bench by which the petitioner was found entitled for Samman Nidhi w.e.f. 10-6-1996, which is the date when the authority has passed the order for the first time. The order passed by the State Government (Annexure P-5) has been passed on wrong interpretation of the order passed by the Apex Court and Division Bench and can not be sustained under the law.
8. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The order (Annexure P-5) by which the petitioner has been found entitled for Samman Nidhi w.e.f. 2-1-2001 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh order granting Samman Nidhi to the petitioner w.e.f. 10-6-1996. All the arrears be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner will also be entitled for the cost, which is quantified Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) payable by the respondents.