Express limits on family pension schemes control eligibility; new constitutional challenges cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

A later beneficial family pension resolution could not be applied beyond its express field of operation: although it removed the minimum service requirement, it was confined to employees in service on 1 January 1986, which the claimant's deceased spouse was not. The claim therefore failed under the 1987 resolution. A fresh constitutional challenge to that resolution could not be raised for the first time in appeal, and the earlier rejection of the five-year minimum service requirement under the 1972 pension scheme could not be reopened. The High Court's grant of family pension was accordingly unsustainable and the writ petition stood dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent could claim family pension under the 31 July 1987 resolution despite the express condition limiting its application to government employees in service on 1 January 1986. (ii) Whether the respondent could challenge in appeal the validity of the 1987 resolution and reopen the challenge to the five-year minimum service requirement under the 1972 pension scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent could claim family pension under the 31 July 1987 resolution despite the express condition limiting its application to government employees in service on 1 January 1986.

Analysis: The 1987 resolution removed the minimum length-of-service requirement for family pension, but it also expressly confined its operation to employees who were in service on 1 January 1986. The respondent's husband had died in 1980, so the express condition for applicability was not satisfied. The later resolution could not be applied contrary to its own limiting clause.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to family pension under the 1987 resolution.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent could challenge in appeal the validity of the 1987 resolution and reopen the challenge to the five-year minimum service requirement under the 1972 pension scheme.

Analysis: The validity of the 1987 resolution's applicability clause was not put in issue in the writ petition or before the Division Bench, and could not be raised for the first time in appeal. The challenge to the five-year eligibility requirement in the 1972 scheme had already been rejected by the earlier dismissal of the special leave petition and writ petition, and the same question could not be reopened. No other scheme or rule was shown to support the claim.

Conclusion: The respondent could not raise the new constitutional challenge in this appeal, and the earlier challenge to the 1972 scheme could not be reopened.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's grant of family pension could not stand because the respondent failed to satisfy the express applicability condition of the later resolution and remained ineligible under the earlier scheme; the writ petition stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A later beneficial pension scheme cannot be applied beyond its express field of operation, and a party cannot in appeal introduce a fresh constitutional challenge or reopen an issue already concluded between the parties.

---