Compensation is governed by the policy prevailing at the time of incident, excluding retrospective application.

The appellants’ relatives, residents of Chhattisgarh, migrated to Leh-Ladakh in 2010 as laborers.

On July 6, 2010, a cloudburst caused the death or disappearance of approximately 37 persons, including the appellants' family members.

Due to the bodies being untraced, death certificates were only issued on August 22, 2020, following the legal presumption of death after seven years.

On October 22, 2020, the State directed the grant of compensation under Rajaswa Pustak Paripatra 6-4, and Rs. 1,00,000/- per deceased was paid based on a 2008 policy.

The appellants filed a writ petition seeking Rs. 4,00,000/- per deceased, citing a 2015 amendment to the policy.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on November 28, 2025, holding that the 2008 policy applied as the cause of action arose in 2010.

This writ appeal was filed against said dismissal, alongside an application for condonation of a 42-day delay.

Whether the cause of action for claiming compensation accrues at the time of the incident or upon the issuance of death certificates.

Whether the amended policy dated June 9, 2015, enhancing compensation to Rs. 4,00,000/-, can be applied retrospectively to a natural calamity that occurred in 2010.

The court primarily applied the provisions of Rajaswa Pustak Paripatra 6-4 (the State’s compensation policy).

It relied on the principle of prospective application of administrative policies, establishing that a welfare policy amendment does not apply retrospectively unless specifically stated.

Furthermore, it applied the principle that the right to compensation and the quantification thereof are governed by the policy in force at the time the cause of action (the death/incident) accrues.

The Division Bench observed that the deaths occurred in 2010 due to a cloudburst, which is the point at which the right to claim compensation was triggered.

At that time, the 2008 version of the Rajaswa Pustak Paripatra 6-4 was the prevailing policy, which stipulated a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

The court rejected the appellants’ contention that the cause of action shifted to 2020 (the date death certificates were issued), clarifying that while the certificates provided proof of death, they did not alter the date the incident occurred.

The court further reasoned that the 2015 amendment, which increased the compensation amount, operates prospectively and cannot be stretched to cover incidents from 2010.

Consequently, the administrative delay in issuing certificates did not entitle the appellants to the benefit of a subsequent policy amendment.

The application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 01/2026) was allowed, but the appeal was dismissed on its merits without costs.

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge.