JUDGMENT 1. - The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed for the reasons stated therein and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merit. 3. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the petition filed by the respondents for claiming additional subsidy under the Notification dated 29th August, 1992 amending the original scheme of the subsidy which was initiated by the State Govt. under the Notification dated 5th Sept., 1990 known as the Rajasthan State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1990. 4. The grievance of the appellant is that the application of the respondent-petitioner laying claim to the additional subsidy under the Notification dated 29th August, 1992 was rejected in the first instance on 23/28th Dec., 1992 by the State Level Screening Committee. The petitioner had made no grievance of such rejection at that time. He has filed the petition challenging said order dated 23/28th Dec., 92 and seeking a mandamus for release of additional subsidy under the Scheme as amended by Notification of 1992, only on 7.12.98 after he came to know of the decisions of this Court in Shree Ram Oil and Vandana Synthetics, (S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 1197/97 and 171/1997 respectively), upholding the contention of the claimants, who had established a New Industrial Unit as defined in the Scheme during the operation of the Scheme but before Notification of 1992, to additional subsidy to such new industrial units falling within the purview of the capital investment subsidy 1990 eligible to claim additional subsidy of 10%/15%, as the case may be, by dint of the amendment in the existing subsidy providing additional subsidy. 5. The learned Single Judge though held the writ petition to be belated but directed the respondent to give benefit of subsidy with effect from future date i.e. 1.1.99. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan alleging that since the learned Single Judge has held the petition suffering from [aches, it ought to have been dismissed, no relief can be granted w.e.f. 1.1.99 as the scheme itself had come to a close on 31st March, 1998. 7. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan alleging that since the learned Single Judge has held the petition suffering from [aches, it ought to have been dismissed, no relief can be granted w.e.f. 1.1.99 as the scheme itself had come to a close on 31st March, 1998. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner has urged that since there is no prohibition against making successive applications for additional subsidy, he could maintain his claim to additional subsidy independent of challenging the order of the Committee as the decision being not res-judicata, he could have claimed the relief even by making a fresh application to the Committee drawing its attention to decision of this Court, which made the policy decision of the committee to be erroneous. 8. Apparently, the contention of the counsel for the appellant is justified in as much as the petition itself has been filed on 7.12.98 more than 8 months after the scheme came to an end. The fact that the petitioner was waiting for outcome of other matters is of little avail. A person cannot reap the fruits in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction taking speculative steps. 9. When the petitioner was conveyed the decision of the Committee, a right to appeal was available to him. He did not avail that opportunity. Nor did he challenged the order or claimed relief by invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction. He came to this Court after losing the statutory right of appeal and expiry of period for making a new application. Clearly, it was a case of gross negligence and laches in not challenging the order of which the petitioner felt aggrieved and has never expressed his grievance. The learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission that in the matter of grant of subsidy which is a one time benefit, the concept of giving benefit with effect from a future date is alien. Moreover, w.e.f. 1.1.99 when the Scheme was not in existence, no benefit can be allowed. It cannot be lost sight of that the subsidy is a gratis benefit given to a person on fulfilment of certain conditions. No indefeasible and vested right come into existence to claim at any date in future after sleeping over claim to such gratuitous benefit for years together. It cannot be lost sight of that the subsidy is a gratis benefit given to a person on fulfilment of certain conditions. No indefeasible and vested right come into existence to claim at any date in future after sleeping over claim to such gratuitous benefit for years together. Apparently, the petitioner was indulging into the speculative facet of litigation in putting forward a stale claim. Instead of worrying about his rights, he was awaiting to put forward his claim only if other persons who felt aggrieved become successful or not. 10. Appeal is allowed. Judgment under appeal is set aside, and the writ petition is dismissed.No orders as to costs.Appeal Allowed - Order of Single Judge set aside. *******