TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... einafter referred to as the Act), from August 1, 1953, payment of this pension was discontinued. 4. Bapumiya thereupon filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction ordering the Respondent State and its officers to pay to the petitioner and his heirs in perpetuity, a sum of ₹ 500/- with effect from August 1, 1953. It was contended that the pension was a political pension and not a personal inam and consequently, the pension did not fall within the definition of personal inam in the Inam Abolition Act and could not be abolished thereunder. Subsequently, at the instance of writ-applicant, the High Court by its order, dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication (570 of 1964) were heard together, and rejected by the High Court as per order, dated December 8, 1966. 7. The High Court has declined the review application mainly on the ground that it was time-barred under Article 124 of the Limitation Act and no sufficient ground for condonation of the delay had been alleged or made out. 8. Mr. Dhebar appealing for the appellant, contends that the order under appeal suffers from patent error, which the High Court should have suo motu rectified in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. These errors according to the Counsel are : First no mandamus could have been validly issued to enforce the claim to arrears of political pension. Secondly, in any case, the High Court has g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of the writ applicant had become limited Jo pension payable for the Life time of the writ-applicant. The High Court therefore manifestly erred inasmuch as it directed the State to pay pension at the rate of ₹ 500/- per month, even to heirs of the deceased in their own right. This patent error which was perhaps due to inadvertence could and should have been suo motu corrected by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction even after the expiry of the ordinary period of limitation, if any prescribed for a review application. 11. For the foregoing reasons we partly allow the appeal, and modify the order of the High Court limiting the amount payable thereunder to the respondents herein, to arrears of pensio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
