Vested substantive rights under transfer rules remain protected; later amendment cannot defeat a pending claimant's accrued entitlement.

Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 created a substantive entitlement for a verified claimant in occupation of allottable property to seek transfer in satisfaction of compensation, and that entitlement vested when the application was made. The Sixth Amendment abrogating Rule 30 was held not to operate retrospectively because neither the amending notification nor the parent Act showed clear and unmistakable retrospective intent, and Section 40 did not authorise retrospective delegated legislation. The claimant's accrued right therefore remained governed by Rule 30 as it stood on the date of application, not by the later position at the time of decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rights of a claimant holding a verified claim under Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, are governed by the rule as it stood on the date of the application for transfer of property or by the position existing on the date of decision by the authorities.

Analysis: Rule 30 conferred a substantive entitlement on a verified claimant in occupation of allottable property to seek transfer in satisfaction of compensation, and the right to have compensation determined and satisfied according to the rules in force when the application was made was treated as vested. The abrogation of Rule 30 by the Sixth Amendment did not contain any express retrospective clause, and there was nothing in the amending notification or the parent Act to indicate clear and unmistakable retrospective operation. A repealing or amending provision affecting substantive rights is not to be construed retrospectively unless such intention is expressed or arises by necessary implication. The rule-making power under Section 40 of the Act did not authorise retrospective delegated legislation, and the later amendment could not deprive pending applicants of rights already accrued under the unamended Rule 30.

Conclusion: The claimant's rights were governed by Rule 30 as it stood on the date of the application, not by the position on the date of decision by the authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: An amending or repealing subordinate rule that affects a vested substantive right is prospective unless retrospective operation is expressly provided or necessarily implied, and a claimant's accrued right to have compensation satisfied under the governing transfer rule is protected despite later abrogation.

---