https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306972 A statutory pension entitlement under Section 3 was held to arise independently of rule-making under Section 5, because the Act itself fixed the substantive right and policy while the rules were only for implementation. The Court treated Section 5 as delegated legislation, not conditional legislation, and held that prolonged failure to frame rules could not defeat accrued pension rights. In that setting, mandamus was considered permissible to compel the State to perform the delegated function, decide the pension application, and frame the rules within a fixed time, thereby preserving the statutory pension scheme. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Mar 2023 15:28:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306972 A statutory pension entitlement under Section 3 was held to arise independently of rule-making under Section 5, because the Act itself fixed the substantive right and policy while the rules were only for implementation. The Court treated Section 5 as delegated legislation, not conditional legislation, and held that prolonged failure to frame rules could not defeat accrued pension rights. In that setting, mandamus was considered permissible to compel the State to perform the delegated function, decide the pension application, and frame the rules within a fixed time, thereby preserving the statutory pension scheme. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306972