Emergency detainees and their family members sought withheld pension arrears under the Samman Nidhi rules. The court declined relief equivalent to that granted in an earlier batch because a subsequent notification retrospectively repealed the rules. The petitions were disposed of without granting arrears.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 339 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 179 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 189 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 279 of 2020
2
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 344 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 346 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 360 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
3
---- Respondent
WPC No. 363 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 364 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 365 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
4
---- Respondent
WPC No. 366 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 367 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 368 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 370 of 2020
5
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 371 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 373 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 374 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
6
WPC No. 378 of 2020
Versus
WPC No. 381 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 384 of 2020
Versus
7
---- Respondent
WPC No. 387 of 2020
---- Petitioner Versus
---- Respondent
| WPC No. 395 of 2020 |
|---|
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 396 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
---- Petitioner
8
Versus
WPC No. 400 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 401 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 402 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
9
---- Respondent
WPC No. 403 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 404 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 405 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 406 of 2020
10
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 416 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 417 of 2020
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 418 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
11
---- Respondent
WPC No. 419 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 422 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 463 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
12
---- Respondent
WPC No. 473 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 474 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 475 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 476 of 2020
13
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 477 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 478 of 2020
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 479 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
14
WPC No. 482 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 483 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
WPC No. 485 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
15
WPC No. 486 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 487 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 488 of 2020
Versus
---- Respondent
WPC No. 529 of 2020
---- Petitioner
16
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Shri Alok Bakshi, Addl A.G., Shri Rahul Jha, G.A. and Shri Ashish Tiwari, Dy. G.A., Ms. Astha Shukla and Shri Pawan Kesharwani, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order on Board
24.08.2021
Heard.
17
support the detainee or their family members the rules known as Loknayak Jaiprakash Narayn (MISA/D.I.R. Rajnaitik Ya Samajik Karno Se Nirudha Vyakti) Samman Nidhi Niyam, 2008 were promulgated whereby monetary allowances were given to the detainee or their family members. The said rules were repealed by notification dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure R-1). In the meanwhile, since certain verification clause was set into motion on 28.01.2019 and the payment which was given to the petitioners or their family members were stopped. As such it was subject of challenge. She further submits that in the bunch of cases which were decided on 26.05.2020 this Court has passed the
following orders. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced herein under:-
"27. In view of the aforesaid legal position as it stands, it is evidently clear that the petitioners have not been subjected to scrutiny or verification after issuance of the impugned order dated 28.01.2019 nor is there any order of the State Government doubting and it is ordered accordingly and since the rules itself now stands repealed from 23.01.2020, the petitioners would be entitled for the benefit, arising out of the said act from the date it was withheld i.e.,January, 2019 till the date the Act itself stood repealed in January,2020.
28.The writ petition stands allowed. Let the payments for the period between January, 2019 to 23.01.2020 be made to each of the petitioners within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
He further submits that these petitioners have also filed the similar petitions which could not be heard for some reasons or the other inasmuch as a review petition against order dated 26.05.2020 was filled. It is contended the petitioners are entitled for the same relief which was granted in earlier batch of petition to grant pension between January 2019 to 23.01.2020, till the rules were repealed.
18
29.07.2020 which reads as under:-
lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx
ea=ky;] egkunh Hkou] uok jk;iqj vVy uxj
vVy uxj] fnukad 29 tqykbZ 2020
vf/klwpuk
dzekad ,Q 7&9@2008@1&7 & jkT; ljdkj }kjk yksduk;d t;izdk'k ukjk;.k ¼ehlk@Mh- vkbZvkj- jktuSfrd ;k lkekftd dkj.kksa ls fu:) O;fDr½ lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 2008 dks lela[;d vf/klwpuk fnukad 23&01&2020 ds }kjk fujflr fd;k x;k Fkk jkT; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk mDr fujlu fnukad dks la'kksf/kr djrs gq, yksduk;d t;izdk'k ukjk;.k ¼ehlk@Mh- vkbZ- vkj- jktuSfrd ;k lkekftd dkj.kksa ls fu:) O;fDr½ lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 2008 dks tuojh] 2019 ls fujflr djrk gS-
NRrhlx<+ ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj Mh- Mh- flag] lfpo
lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ea=ky;] egkunh Hkou] uok jk;iqj vVy uxj
vVy uxj] fnukad 23 tuojh 2020
vf/klwpuk
19
dzekad ,Q 7&9@2008@1&7 & jkT; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] lela[;d vf/klwpuk fnukad 5 vxLr] 2008 }kjk Hkkjr esa ?kksf"kr vkikrdky fnukad 25 twu] 1975 ls 31 ekpZ 1977 dh dkykof/k ds nkSjku NRrhlx<+ ds jktuSfrd ;k lkekftd dkj.kksa ls ehlk@Mh- vkbZ- vkj- ds v/khu fu:) O;fDr;ksa dks lgk;rk nsus ds fy, cuk;s x;s yksduk;d t;izdk'k ukjk;.k ¼ehlk@Mh- vkbZ- vkj- jktuSfrd ;k lkekftd dkj.kksa ls fu:) O;fDr½ lEeku fuf/k fu;e] 2008 dks fujflr djrk gS-
NRrhlx<+ ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj Mh- Mh- flag] lfpo
Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge
Jyoti
1 issue framed by the court
Could emergency detainees or their family members receive pension arrears on parity with earlier petitioners despite a subsequent notification retrospectively repealing the benefit rules?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
earlier batch of petitionsDistinguished¶458
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishna Kumar Soni
State Of C.G. Through The Principal Secretary
The Secretary General Administrative Department
The Collector District Bilaspur
Sudakshina Shende
The Collector, District - Raipur
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
