Repealed subordinate legislation and compassionate appointment claims: saving provisions did not preserve rights that had not accrued before repeal.

Subordinate legislation framed under the repealed Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 did not survive repeal by the Electricity Act, 2003 unless expressly saved. Section 185 of the 2003 Act preserved only specified past acts and did not keep alive regulations that were not in force when the employee died or the claim arose. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 also did not preserve the claim because no accrued right existed before repeal, and the definition of "rule" did not revive the repealed regulations. The claim was therefore to be considered only under the industrial settlement then in force, not under the repealed regulations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the regulations framed under the repealed Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 continued to govern compassionate appointment claims after repeal by the Electricity Act, 2003. (ii) Whether the saving provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003 and the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserved the petitioner's claim under those regulations.

Issue (i): Whether the regulations framed under the repealed Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 continued to govern compassionate appointment claims after repeal by the Electricity Act, 2003.

Analysis: The regulations in question were subordinate legislation framed under the repealed parent enactment. In the absence of an express saving clause preserving those regulations, the repeal of the parent statute resulted in the repeal of the subordinate legislation as well. The relevant saving provision in Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 protected only specified matters and past actions, not a regulation that was not in force when the employee died and when the claim arose.

Conclusion: The regulations framed under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 did not survive the repeal and could not govern the respondent's claim.

Issue (ii): Whether the saving provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003 and the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserved the petitioner's claim under those regulations.

Analysis: Section 185(2)(a) saved only things already done or actions already taken under the repealed laws, and Section 185(5) merely preserved the general operation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 6 did not assist the respondent because no right had accrued under the repealed regulations before repeal, and the claim arose only after those regulations had ceased to have effect. The argument based on the definition of "rule" in Section 3(51) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 also did not preserve the repealed regulations.

Conclusion: Neither the Electricity Act, 2003 nor the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserved the respondent's claim under the repealed regulations.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the writ petitioner's entitlement was to be examined only under the industrial settlement then in force, not under the repealed regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: Subordinate legislation framed under a repealed parent Act does not survive unless it is expressly saved, and the general saving provision cannot revive a right that had not accrued before repeal.

---