PANCHI DEVI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1325 · Decided: 18-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1J25 
PANCHI DEVI 
v. 
ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7556-57 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 18, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
A 
B 
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (B & R) 
INCLUDING GARDEN IRRIGATION, WATER WORKS AND C 
AYURVEDIC · DEPARTMENT 
OF 
WORKCHARGE 
EMPLOL YEES SERVICE RULES, 1964 
r.22A (6) - Family pension - Claimed by wife of a work 
charge employee after 14 years of his death - Work charge 
employee died in 1987 - r.22-A providing for pensionary D 
benefits to work charge employee coming into force w.e.f. 
17.9.1980 -
Liberty to wife of deceased work charge 
employee to exercise option effective from 1. 9. 1982 - Rule 
made prospectively applicable - Held: The question of 
exercising the right of option under rule 22A would arise only E 
if the employee was eligible therefor on the date of coming 
into force of the rule -
The rule has not been given 
retrospective effect and, therefore, the question of extending 
the benefit to those who were not otherwise entitled thereto 
does not arise. 
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: 
F 
Delegated legislation - Held is ordinarily prospective in 
nature - A right or a liability which was created for the first time, 
cannot be given a retrospective effect - Furthermore, the 
intention of the State in giving a prospective effect to r.22A is 
G 
clear and explicit - Rajasthan Public Works Department (B 
& R) Including Garden Irrigation, Water Works And Ayurvedic 
Department of Work charge Employees Service Rules, 1964. 
~ 
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: 
1325 
H 
1326 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
Articles 14 and 226 - Held: Article 14 is a positive 
concept - No relief can be granted to the claimant on the 
basis of the deCision relied on as the same did not lay down 
correct law - Even otherwise the writ petition as also the review 
petition were rightly not entertained on the ground of delay and 
B /aches on the part of the claimant - Delay/laches. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
7556-7557 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.12.1998 and 
7.4.2005 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur 
c Bench, Jaipur in Special Appeal No. 295of1997 and D.B. Civil 
Review Petition No. 43 of 2004 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal 
No. 295 of 1997. 
· Nilofar Qureshi, Kiran Kapoor and Vipin Kumar (for 
Shankar Divate) for the Appellant. 
D 
Milind Kumar and Mukul Kumar (for Aruneshwar Gupta) for 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
E 
1. Leave granted. 
2. Appellant's husband, who was working as work charge 
employee in the Public Works Department in the year 1958 and 
confirmed on the said post vide order dated 22.8.1972 with 
effect from 31.3.1970, died in the year 1978. Appellant after 
F 14 years of her husband's death claimed family pension of her 
husband under Rule 22A of the Rajasthan Public Works 
Department (B&R) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works 
and Ayurvedic Department Work Charge Employees Service 
Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules) which came into force with 
G effect from 17.09.1980. Since, no order was passed on her 
representation, she filed a writ petition bearing No. 6890 of 
1992 before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. 
A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said 
writ petition. Appellant thereafter filed a Special Appeal bearing 
)... 
No. 295 of 1997 before the Division Bench of the High Court. 
H 
PANCHI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
1327 
By reason of the impugned order dated 15.12.1998, the said 
A 
Special Appeal has been dismissed, inter alia, on the premise 
( 
that the appellant had approached the High Court after 14 years 
of her husband's death and since all the dues admissible to the 
appellant's husband were duly settled during his life time and 
the widow of the deceased (appellant herein) received all the 
B 
dues including gratuity and, thus, the question of her entitlement 
to family pension does not arise. 
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a review petition 
. • 
No.43 of 2004 along with an application for condonation of 
delay. The said review application has also been dismissed on c 
the premise that the application for condonation of delay in filing 
the review petition has been dismissed. 
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, 
however, would draw our attention to the fact that in the case 
of one Prabhati Devi, whose husband was also 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.