9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1953. 2. Validity of the High Court's order directing payment of political pension. 3. Review of the High Court's order based on error. Interpretation of the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1953: The case involved a dispute regarding the payment of a political pension to Sardar Shermia Bapumia, which was discontinued upon the enforcement of the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1953. The appellant contended that the pension did not fall under the Act's definition of "personal inam" and thus could not be abolished. The High Court initially ordered the State to pay the pension based on the representation that it was not a personal inam. However, the appellant later sought a review, claiming that the pension had been resumed under different rules. The High Court rejected the review application, citing it as time-barred under the Limitation Act. Validity of the High Court's order directing payment of political pension: The appellant challenged the High Court's order on the grounds that no mandamus should have been issued for arrears of political pension and that the relief granted exceeded what was requested. The appellant argued that by deleting the words "in perpetuity" from the prayer clause, the claim was limited to the pension for the writ-applicant's lifetime only. The High Court's direction to pay the pension to the heirs of the deceased was deemed excessive and beyond the mutual concessions made by the parties. The Court acknowledged the concession made by the applicant and held that it was unfair for the appellant to retract from it post the pensioner's death. Review of the High Court's order based on error: The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the High Court's error in directing payment of the pension to the deceased pensioner's heirs. The Court held that the High Court erred in extending the payment to the heirs beyond the lifetime of the pensioner, as the claim had been limited to the pension payable during the pensioner's lifetime. Consequently, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court's order to limit the amount payable to arrears of pension due to the deceased pensioner only, from August 1, 1953, until the date of the pensioner's death in 1964. The Court left the parties to bear their own costs in the circumstances of the case.
|
