Prospective operation of delegated legislation bars widow's family pension claim, and stale proceedings fail on delay and laches.

Rule 22A of the Rajasthan Public Works Department Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 was held to operate prospectively from 1 September 1982, so a widow could not claim family pension for an employee who died in 1978 before the rule took effect. The Court stated that a pensionary benefit created for the first time by delegated legislation does not apply retrospectively unless the rule clearly says so, and the amendment here showed prospective operation. The claim was also treated as barred by unexplained delay and laches because the challenge was brought long after the relevant events.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 22A of the Rajasthan Public Works Department Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 could be applied retrospectively so as to confer family pension on the widow of an employee who had died before the rule came into force. (ii) Whether the claim was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 22A of the Rajasthan Public Works Department Work Charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 could be applied retrospectively so as to confer family pension on the widow of an employee who had died before the rule came into force.

Analysis: The rule granting pensionary benefits to work charge employees, and later extending the option to widows by the amended sub-rule, was made effective prospectively from 1 September 1982. The employee in question had died in 1978, before the operative date. A right created for the first time by delegated legislation does not operate retrospectively unless the rule clearly so provides, and the amendment here expressly indicated prospective operation. The earlier view relied upon by the appellant was held not to state the correct law.

Conclusion: The claim to family pension was not maintainable, and the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the rule.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

Analysis: The challenge was made long after the death of the employee and after the relevant events had concluded. The Court treated the writ petition and review proceedings as having been rightly declined on the ground of unexplained delay and laches.

Conclusion: The claim was also barred by delay and laches, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The Court held that the widow could not obtain pensionary relief under a prospective rule that did not cover her case, and the proceedings were also vitiated by delay and laches.

Ratio Decidendi: A benefit created for the first time by delegated legislation operates prospectively unless retrospective application is clearly provided, and stale claims may be rejected on delay and laches.

---