Promissory estoppel under incentive schemes protects accrued grant-in-aid benefits against later reductions in promised government support.

A petitioner who applied within the original incentive period under a Government grant-in-aid scheme could rely on the State's representation and the scheme conditions linked to the date of application. A later amendment reducing the promised benefit from full grant-in-aid to a lower percentage could not be applied to defeat an accrued entitlement already founded on the original order, especially where the petitioner had acted in accordance with the scheme. The text treats the matter as governed by promissory estoppel and earlier Division Bench rulings on the same scheme, with the result that the original benefit remained applicable and consequential financial relief followed if reduced aid had already been paid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to grant-in-aid at 100 per cent under the original Government order dated 18 July 1989, and whether the subsequent amendment reducing the benefit to 75 per cent could be applied to the petitioner's case.

Analysis: The petitioner had applied within the period contemplated by the original incentive scheme and had acted on the representation held out by the State. The benefit under the scheme was linked to the date of application for approval and the steps taken pursuant to the original Government order. The later amendment could not defeat a claim already founded on the original promise where the petitioner had proceeded in accordance with the scheme. The matter was treated as covered by earlier Division Bench rulings applying the principle of promissory estoppel to the same incentive scheme.

Conclusion: The amended Government order reducing the benefit to 75 per cent was held inapplicable to the petitioner, and the petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of the original 100 per cent grant-in-aid.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the authority was required to reconsider the claim in the light of the original incentive scheme, with consequential financial relief for the balance rebate if 75 per cent had already been granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a party has acted on a governmental incentive scheme within the stipulated time and satisfied the scheme requirements, a subsequent amendment reducing the promised benefit cannot be applied to defeat the accrued entitlement.

---