2008 (12) TMI 720 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the review petition have rightly not been entertained on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellant?

Summary

Issues:
Claim for family pension under Rule 22A after husband's death, retrospective vs. prospective effect of rules, entitlement of widows to pension benefits, delay in filing review petition.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, whose husband, a work charge employee, died in 1978. The appellant sought family pension under Rule 22A of the Rajasthan Public Works Department rules. The High Court dismissed her petition, stating that all dues were settled during the husband's lifetime, and the widow had received gratuity, hence no entitlement to family pension. The appellant's review petition was also dismissed due to delay. However, the appellant cited a similar case where a widow was allowed pension benefits even if her husband died before the rule came into force.

In the cited case, the High Court held that widows of work charge employees who died before the rule's enactment could claim benefits. The State's appeal against this decision was withdrawn, stating the issue was settled in a previous case. The rule allowing pension benefits to widows was added in 1980, with a provision for widows to opt for pension from 1982. The State argued that the rule had prospective effect from 1982, thus not applicable to the appellant whose husband died in 1978. The court emphasized that delegated legislation is usually prospective and cannot create retrospective rights or liabilities.

The court concluded that the appellant had no case, considering the delay in filing petitions and the rule's prospective nature. It was held that the appellant was not entitled to family pension benefits under Rule 22A due to the timing of her husband's death. The decision in the similar case was deemed incorrect, and the appellant's petitions were rightly rejected based on delay and lack of merit.

In summary, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision regarding the appellant's claim for family pension under Rule 22A. The judgment clarified the prospective nature of the rules, emphasizing that benefits could not be extended to those not eligible at the time of enactment. The appellant's case was deemed without merit, considering the delay in filing petitions and the specific provisions of the rules.