Smt. Saroj Dwivedi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4794 of 2019 Smt. Saroj Dwivedi W/o Late Shri Arun Kumar Dwivedi Aged About 69 Years R/o H - 120 Near Santoshi Mandir, Shyam Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Secretary General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Galib Dwivedi, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ayaz Naved, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 07/01/2020

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P1 dated 28.01.2019 whereby the respondents have held the benefits paid to the petitioner under Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan (MISA/DIR Rajnaitik Ya Samajik Karano Se Nirudh Vyakti) Samman Nidhi, 2008 (in short "Samman Nidhi, 2008").

2. According to the petitioner, her husband had been subjected to detention during the emergency period for 19 months and he was in custody in Raipur, Sagar and Gwalior Jail.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid rule, the husband of the petitioner was getting monetary compensation which was initially at R.6,000/-, subsequently was enhanced to Rs.15,000/- and presently the amount is Rs.25,000/- per month. The husband of the petitioner died on 06.04.2012 and thereafter the monetary pension was being

released to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, pursuant to Annexure P-1, the respondents have stopped releasing of the said monthly payment payable to the petitioner without there being any rhyme or reason and without there being any investigation or verification done on a benefit which the petitioner had been enjoying for the last more than a decade.

4. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that from the contents of the writ petition it appears that there is no order as such passed holding that the petitioner is not entitled for the said benefit. The benefit which was granted to the petitioner was in terms of Samman Nidhi, 2008 as is reflected from Annexure P-2. Annexure P-2 clearly reflects the manner in which the investigation and the criteria which have to be looked into for deciding the entitlement part. The petitioner has been getting the benefit for almost a decade. It has to be presumed that there was some sort of inquiry at some stage conducted while granting the benefit to the petitioner.

Now if at all there is any doubt in the minds of the respondents, the remedy available to the respondents was for subjecting the petitioner to scrutiny after calling upon the petitioner for due verification of his entitlement and thereafter to take an appropriate decision. The respondents could not have without there being a formal order stopped releasing of the said monetary benefits payable to the petitioner.

5. Under the circumstances, let the respondents 2 & 3 conduct an enquiry as is required under Samman Nidhi, 2008 and pass a formal order. Till a formal order is passed, the petitioner shall be entitled for continuity of the benefit that he was getting prior to the issuance of the impugned order dated 28.01.2019. The respondents

are directed to forthwith release the monetary benefits to the petitioner including arrears of the unpaid part. The benefit shall be released to the petitioner till a final decision is taken by the respondents on an enquiry if they intend to conduct.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Ved