Holding

Rule 22A is prospective in nature and does not confer a family‑pension right on widows whose husbands died before 1 September 1982; the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Panchi Devi, the widow of a work‑charge employee who died in 1978, claimed a family pension under Rule 22A of the Rajasthan Public Works Department (B&R) Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964, which became effective on 17 September 1980 with a sub‑rule (6) applicable from 1 September 1982. The High Court dismissed her writ petition and subsequent appeals, holding that the rule was prospective and could not be claimed by widows whose husbands died before its commencement. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that a rule creating a new right cannot have retrospective effect and that the State’s intention to apply it prospectively was explicit. The Court also rejected the argument that denial of pension violated Article 14, noting that the earlier decision in Prabhati Devi was incorrectly decided. Additionally, the petition was barred by delay and laches. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The applicability of Rule 22A (sub‑rule 6) to widows of work‑charge employees who died before the rule’s prospective commencement date.
Whether the prospective application of the rule violates the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the petition is barred by delay and laches.
Whether the amendment introducing Rule 22A is ultra vires the parent Service Rules.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 226

Subjects

family pensionservice rulesprospective legislationretrospective effectArticle 14delaylachesdelegated legislationwidow's entitlement

Judgment

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1J25

PANCHI DEVI A
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7556-57 of 2008)

DECEMBER 18, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

SERVICE LAW:
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (B & R)
INCLUDING GARDEN IRRIGATION, WATER WORKS AND C
AYURVEDIC · DEPARTMENT OF WORKCHARGE
EMPLOL YEES SERVICE RULES, 1964
r.22A (6) - Family pension - Claimed by wife of a work
charge employee after 14 years of his death - Work charge
employee died in 1987 - r.22-A providing for pensionary D
benefits to work charge employee coming into force w.e.f.
17.9.1980 - Liberty to wife of deceased work charge
employee to exercise option effective from 1. 9. 1982 - Rule
made prospectively applicable - Held: The question of
exercising the right of option under rule 22A would arise only E
if the employee was eligible therefor on the date of coming
into force of the rule - The rule has not been given
retrospective effect and, therefore, the question of extending
the benefit to those who were not otherwise entitled thereto
does not arise.
F
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:
Delegated legislation - Held is ordinarily prospective in
nature - A right or a liability which was created for the first time,
cannot be given a retrospective effect - Furthermore, the
intention of the State in giving a prospective effect to r.22A is G
clear and explicit - Rajasthan Public Works Department (B
& R) Including Garden Irrigation, Water Works And Ayurvedic
Department of Work charge Employees Service Rules, 1964.
~ CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950:
1325 H
1326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Articles 14 and 226 - Held: Article 14 is a positive
concept - No relief can be granted to the claimant on the
basis of the deCision relied on as the same did not lay down
correct law - Even otherwise the writ petition as also the review
petition were rightly not entertained on the ground of delay and
B /aches on the part of the claimant - Delay/laches.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
7556-7557 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.12.1998 and
7.4.2005 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur
c Bench, Jaipur in Special Appeal No. 295of1997 and D.B. Civil
Review Petition No. 43 of 2004 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal
No. 295 of 1997.
· Nilofar Qureshi, Kiran Kapoor and Vipin Kumar (for
Shankar Divate) for the Appellant.
D Milind Kumar and Mukul Kumar (for Aruneshwar Gupta) for
the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
E 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant's husband, who was working as work charge
employee in the Public Works Department in the year 1958 and
confirmed on the said post vide order dated 22.8.1972 with
effect from 31.3.1970, died in the year 1978. Appellant after
F 14 years of her husband's death claimed family pension of her
husband under Rule 22A of the Rajasthan Public Works
Department (B&R) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works
and Ayurvedic Department Work Charge Employees Service
Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules) which came into force with
effect from 17.09.1980. Since, no order was passed on her
G representation, she filed a writ petition bearing No. 6890 of
1992 before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said
writ petition. Appellant thereafter filed a Special Appeal bearing )...
No. 295 of 1997 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
H
PANCHI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 1327

By reason of the impugned order dated 15.12.1998, the said A
Special Appeal has been dismissed, inter alia, on the premise
that the appellant had approached the High Court after 14 years
(
of her husband's death and since all the dues admissible to the
appellant's husband were duly settled during his life time and
the widow of the deceased (appellant herein) received all the B
dues including gratuity and, thus, the question of her entitlement
to family pension does not arise.
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a review petition
. No.43 of 2004 along with an application for condonation of
• delay. The said review application has also been dismissed on c
the premise that the application for condonation of delay in filing
the review petition has been dismissed.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,
however, would draw our attention to the fact that in the case
of one Prabhati Devi, whose husband was also working as a
D
work charge employee and did not opt for pension, a learned
Single Judge of the same High Court held that the benefit of
the said rule can be claimed even by the widows whose
husbands died prior to coming into force of the said Rules.
Before the said learned Judge, a contention was raised that
the sub-rule (6) of Rule 22A having prescribed a date namely E
01.09.1982, the same was prospective in nature. The said
contention was repelled stating:
I am not impressed with the submission of learned
Additional Advocate General that the widows of the work
charged employees died after September1, 1982 were F
only entitled to opt for pension. I do not find any difference
between two widows to work charged employees, one who
died prior to September 1, 1982 and another who died
after the said date. lnterpreuation of sub rule (6) of Rule
22A, that discriminates between the two widows cannot G
be accepted. Language of sub rule (6) is very clear and it
mandates that with effect from September 1, 1982 the
widows of deceased work charged employees who were
____,...."
permanent and eligible for CPF but died without opting for
pension, could also exercise option for pension." H
1328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A 5. The special appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan
against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed
-as withdrawn by the High Court on the plea that issue was
settled by another Division Bench of the High Court in D.B.Civil
Special Appeal No. 782 of 2002 titled State of Rajasthan vs.
8 Girraj, decided on 03rd January, 2003.
6. The Rajasthan High Court did not declare the said
provision to be ultra vires. Prior to insertion of Rule 22A by way
of amendment in the Rules, there was no provision for grant of
pensionary benefits to the employees who retired as work
· C charge employees. The amendment was made vide notification
dated September 17, 1980. It was provided by Rule 22 that a
work charge employee having been or on being declared
permanent on completing 10 years service shall have the option
to elect either to continue to contribute towards contributory ·
provident fund or to opt for pensionary benefits. Sub-clause (iv)
D of the said rule provides that the option shall have to be
exercised in writing within a period of six months from the date
of amended rule came into force from 17.08.1980. Vide
notification dated December 11, 1989 sub-rule (6) was added
in Rule 22 which was made effective from September 1, 1982,
E in terms whereof widows of the work charged employees were
also given the liberty to exercise such option.
7. The State, therefore, had indisputably made the said
rules applicable with a prospective effect i.e. from 1.9.1982. If
that be so, the question of grant of any benefit in favour of the
F appellant herein did not and could not arise as admittedly her
husband died in the year 1978. The question of exercising the
right of option, as provided for, under rule 22A would arise only
if the employees were eligible therefor on the date of coming
into force thereof. It has not been given retrospective effect. As
G no retrospective effect to the rule has been given, the question
of extending the benefit thereto to those who were not
otherwise entitled thereto does not and cannot arise. A
delegated legislation, as is well known, is ordinarily prospective
in nature. A right or a liability which was created for the first time, \
cannot be given a retrospective effect. Furthermore, the
H
PANCHI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 1329

intention of the State in giving a prospective effect to that rule A
is clear and explicit; the amendment in Rule 22A was also to
be effective from 1.9.1982 itself. No relief can be granted to
1 the appellant herein on the basis of the decision in Prabhati
Devi (supra). The said decision did not lay down the correct
law. Article 14 of the Constitution of India has a positive concept. 8
Equality, it is trite; cannot be claimed in illegality. Even
otherwise the writ petition as also the review petition have rightly
not been entertained on the ground of delay and laches on the
part of the appellant.
8. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion C
that apart from the question of delay, even on merit, the appellant
has no case.
RP . Appeal dismissed.

... ,
•