Discretionary financial assistance depends on the policy in force when the application is considered, not when it is filed.

In discretionary governmental financial assistance schemes, the controlling policy is the one in force when the application is actually considered, unless the scheme creates a vested right. An earlier application does not by itself confer an enforceable entitlement or legitimate expectation to be assessed under a superseded policy, and sanction of study leave does not amount to an assurance of funding. Applying the revised policy in force on the consideration date, the claim failed because the institution and course did not meet the updated eligibility criteria. The Delhi HC upheld refusal of partial funding and set aside the contrary view that treated the application date as decisive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's claim for partial funding of foreign study had to be examined with reference to the policy in force on the date of his application or the policy in force on the date when the application was considered, and whether the respondent had any vested right or legitimate expectation to insist on grant of financial assistance under the earlier scheme.

Analysis: The scheme under the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2008 stated that financial support may be extended to eligible officers, which did not create an absolute entitlement. The material point was the date on which the request for financial assistance was actually considered. By that time, the modified policy dated 06.05.2011 had come into force, and the respondent did not satisfy its eligibility criteria because the institution was not within the prescribed ranking and the course was not among the recommended programmes. Mere submission of the application earlier did not confer a vested right, and the sanction of study leave did not amount to an assurance that financial assistance would follow.

Conclusion: The respondent could not claim consideration under the earlier scheme merely because the application had been made before the policy change, and the Tribunal erred in treating the date of application as decisive.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the refusal of partial funding under the revised policy was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters of discretionary governmental financial assistance, the controlling policy is the one in force on the date of consideration of the application, unless the scheme creates a vested right; prior application alone does not confer such a right or legitimate expectation.

---