Retrospective allowance order was not enforceable law; Supreme Court treated it as an ex gratia payment.

An order granting a retrospective annual allowance qualifies as law only if made in exercise of legislative power and intended to bind as a rule of conduct. Here, the ruler's direction merely authorised payment of a specified sum for a past period, without any statutory basis, pre-existing legal duty, or customary rule requiring the allowance. The evidence also showed the sons had already been maintained at State expense, and the payment had no nexus to any land revenue grant or true jagir. The Supreme Court held that the order was not enforceable law but an ex gratia payment in the nature of a gift.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ruler's order granting retrospective annual allowance to his sons was a law having the force of law and therefore enforceable against the State of Rajasthan, or whether it was merely an ex gratia gift not creating a legal obligation.

Analysis: The order was examined in light of the distinction between a sovereign's legislative act and an executive act. A measure qualifies as law only if it is made in the exercise of legislative power and is intended to bind as a rule of conduct. The order in question merely directed payment of a specified sum for a past period, without showing any pre-existing legal duty, statutory basis, or customary rule requiring such retrospective cash allowance. The evidence indicated that the sons had already been maintained at State expense, and the allowance bore no nexus to any land revenue grant or true jagir. The reasoning in the earlier authorities relied on by the appellants did not assist them because those cases involved instruments with statutory or regulatory characteristics, unlike the present order.

Conclusion: The order was not law and did not create any legally enforceable obligation against the State of Rajasthan. It was an ex gratia payment in the nature of a gift, and the appeals failed.

---