ORDER : With consent of the parties, hearing of the matters have been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. 2. Both these intra-court appeals filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent since arises out of common order/judgment dated 18.09.2019 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6356 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for direction upon the respondents-Union of India to grant financial assistance to the writ petitioner from the month of June, 2009 to November, 2011 but allowed the claim of the writ petitioner pertaining to direction upon the respondents to extend financial assistance from March, 2016 to December, 2018, and since involve common questions of facts and law, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order/judgment. 3. L.P.A. No. 742 of 2019 has been preferred by the writ petitioner, namely, Mandakini Devi, against part of order/judgment dated 18.09.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 6356 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of the petitioner for disbursement of financial assistance in favour of writ petitioner from the month of June, 2009 to November, 2011 on the ground that the application for the said purpose has not been submitted within a period of six months from the date of death of her husband. 4. L.P.A. No. 19 of 2020 has been preferred by the appellants-Union of India through Assistant Director (H), Office of the D.C. (H), MSEC, Ranchi against other part of judgment/order dated 18.09.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 6356 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has held the petitioner entitled for financial assistance from March, 2016 till date on the ground that plea of the claim for financial assistance to be paid in favour of writ petitioner has not been disputed by the functionaries of the Union of India. 5. 5. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under: The husband of the writ petitioner, namely, Kuldeep Narayan Manjarway was getting financial assistance under the Scheme for Master Craftsmen in indigent circumstances from April, 1992 issued under the signature of Deputy Director (Exhibition), Ministry of Textiles, Government of India and continued till May, 2009. Thereafter, the husband of the writ petitioner died on 31.05.2009. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the financial assistance, which was being disbursed in favour of the deceased husband of the wit petitioner was stopped after death of her husband and as such she submitted an application on 31.12.2010 with all relevant documents before the respondents-authority who recommended the application of the writ petitioner for consideration of grant of financial assistance under the indigent circumstances, but the claim of the writ petitioner was denied so far it relates to her entitlement for financial assistance for the period June, 2009 to November, 2011 on the ground that the petitioner has filed the application beyond the period of six months from the date of death of her husband. Thereafter, the respondents-authority started to extend the benefit of financial assistance from December, 2011 and paid till February, 2016 and after that stopped making payment from March, 2016, which fact has been brought to the notice of the writ Court by filing an Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 994 of 2019 and prayer was made by the writ petitioner to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of financial assistance for the period March, 2016 to December, 2018. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with nonpayment of the financial assistance for the aforesaid periods has filed the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6356 of 2014 by invoking writ jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge after considering the submissions put forth by the parties has disposed of the writ petition whereby rejected the prayer of the petitioner for direction upon the respondents-Union of India to grant financial assistance to the writ petitioner for the period June, 2009 to November, 2011, which is the subject matter of L.P.A. No. 742 of 2019; and allowed the prayer of the writ petitioner pertaining to direction upon the respondents to extend financial assistance from March, 2016 to December, 2018 which is the subject matter of L.P.A. No. 19 of 2020. 6. This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the documents availing on records, deem it fit and proper to first consider the intra-court appeal preferred by the Union of India, being L.P.A. No. 19 of 2020 as the outcome of the said appeal will finally decide the fate of L.P.A. No. 742 of 2019. L.P.A. No. 19 of 2020 7. Ms. Bakshi Vibha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Union of India has submitted, by assailing the impugned order so far it relates to second part of the impugned order holding the writ petitioner entitled for the benefit of financial assistance from March, 2016 till date, that considering the pecuniary condition of the petitioner she was extended the benefit of financial assistance w.e.f. December, 2011 and continued to extend benefit till February, 2016. It has further been submitted that in the Financial year 2017-18, the Financial Wing of the Ministry of Textile, Government of India has not concurred the proposal of financial assistance to the spouse of all the deceased-craftsperson on the ground that there is no provision in 12th Plan (2012-17) of the Government of India and further prior to 12th Plan, this component was under Non-Plan Scheme of the Government of India, as such the writ petitioner was not extended the benefit of financial assistance since March, 2016, but the learned Single Judge, without appreciating the fact and without considering the stand inter alia taken by the respondents-Union of India in the counter affidavit, has recorded in the impugned order that the claim of the writ petitioner has been admitted and on that ground the writ petition has been allowed so far it relates to extending the benefit of financial assistance for the period March, 2016 to December, 2018, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable so far it relates to direction to that part is concerned. 8. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is respondent in L.P.A. No. 19 of 2020, has submitted that once the benefit of financial assistance has been granted to the writ petitioner the appellants-Union of India cannot be allowed to agitate the issue of non-admissibility of the financial assistance and taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusive finding that since the claim of the writ petitioner having been admitted by the respondents-Union of India, as such the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of financial assistance from March, 2016 till date. So far as the claim of the writ petitioner for extending the benefit of financial assistance for the period June, 2009 to November, 2011 is concerned, he submits that once the respondents-Union of India admitted that the writ petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of financial assistance and later extended the benefit of financial assistance from March, 2016, they ought not to have denied such benefit to the writ petitioner. 9. This Court, before appreciating the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to go across the scheme under which the benefit of financial assistance has been decided to be extended in favour of one or the other beneficiary. 9. This Court, before appreciating the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to go across the scheme under which the benefit of financial assistance has been decided to be extended in favour of one or the other beneficiary. The competent authority of the respondents has come out with the scheme for grant of financial assistance to the Master craftsmen in indigent circumstances. It appears from Annexure A appended to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of appellants-Union of India before the writ Court on 17.05.2018 that the aforesaid scheme was revised making it applicable w.e.f. 01.04.1992. The Relevant Clauses, which are necessary for proper adjudication of the lis, read hereunder as: “1.The following regulations will be applicable for grant of financial assistance to master craftsmen in indigent circumstances on annual basis. 2. Eligibility. (i). Master craftsmen, who are recipients of National Awards or Merit Certificate or State Awards in handicrafts will be eligible for being considered for financial assistance. 4. Period of Assistance: This will normally not exceed five years subject to renewal at the expiry of this period. 8. Discontinuance of Allowance: (a). xxx xxx xxx (b). government may also at their discretion terminate the allowance after giving three months notice to the recipients. (c). xxx xxx xxx (d). In the case of those Master Craftsmen who expired during the sanctioned terms of financial assistance their spouse can also be considered for continuation of financial assistance provided the application is submitted within 6 months of the death of the recipient and subject to above conditions. 9. Stopping of allowance On the death of recipient, his/her spouse may continue to draw the allowance till his/her death subject to the provisions of Rule 8, provided, however, dependent spouse submit application for continuation within six months of the death of the recipient. 11. The number of recipients of financial assistance under the schemes should not normally exceed 25 (twenty five) every year.” It is evident from Clause 1 and 4 of the revised scheme that the financial assistance to Master craftsmen in indigent circumstances was to be extended on annual basis which will normally not exceed five years subject to renewal at the expiry of this period. Further, from perusal of Clause 8 (d) read with Clause 9 it appears that in case of those Master Craftsmen who expired during the sanctioned terms of financial assistance their spouse can also be considered for continuation of financial assistance provided the application is submitted within 6 months of the death of the recipient. Likewise, Clause 9 under the caption, ‘Stopping of allowance’ says that on the death of recipient, his/her spouse may continue to draw the allowance till his/her death subject to the provisions of Rule 8, provided, however, dependent spouse submit application for continuation within six months of the death of the recipient. Clause 8(b) speaks that government may also at their discretion terminate the allowance after giving three months notice to the recipients. 10. The appellants-Union of India has filed supplementary affidavit dated 17.06.2020 in L.P.A. No. 19 of 2020, as directed by this Court, wherein the guideline (2017-18 to 2019-20) has been annexed as Annexure 1 along with office memorandum dated 18.05.2017 (Annexure 2) as also the proposal sent by the competent authority for its consideration before the competent authority, as would be evident from Annexure 3/1. From perusal of the averments made in the supplementary affidavit as also in annexures appended thereto, in particular guideline (2017-18 to 2019-20) [Annexure 1], it appears that there is no provision to provide financial support to the spouse of the deceased recipient during 12th Plan Scheme. So far case of the present writ petitioner is concerned, in order to continue the same benefit after February, 2016 her case was referred to Internal Financial Wing of the Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India, decision of which was communicated to the writ petitioner vide letter dated 14.02.2020, Annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit dated 17.06.2020, stating therein that 12th plan scheme guidelines extended to 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 does not support financial assistance/pension to spouse of Master Craftsperson, hence it is not possible to extend such benefits to her. 11. It is settled position of law that pension or the financial assistance is required to be given under the provision of Rule or the scheme and if the provision or scheme does not provide any benefit to be extended there cannot be any direction from the Court of law to extend the benefit of financial assistance or the pension to one or the other. Here, it is admitted case of the writ petitioner, as would be evident from the documents appended to the writ petition that her husband was getting the financial assistance up-to April, 2009 but he died on 31.05.2009 and thereafter, such benefit has been discontinued in view of provision of Clause 8(d) read with Clause 9 of the revised scheme, which has been made effective w.e.f. 01.04.1992 but after substantial delay i.e. after expiry of six months the writ petitioner, spouse of the Master craftsmen, made application for continuation of the said benefit but the same has been rejected on the ground that after the death of the Master Craftsmen the benefit of financial assistance will discontinue as per the provision of Clause 9. The same could have been renewed only if such application is made within a period of six months from the date of death of the recipient but admittedly herein such application was made beyond the period of six months, therefore, the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected. In the meanwhile, the tenure of the Plan under which the scheme was floated to extend the benefit of financial assistance, has also ended after starting of the tenure of 12th Plan i.e. for the financial year 2012-17 and admittedly in the said plan there is no provision to extend the benefit to the spouse of the Master Craftsmen, as discussed herein above, and it is settled position of law that the benefit of financial assistance is only required to be given under the provision of law/scheme, if there is provision under law or scheme. Further, in course of the 12th five year plan for the interregnum period i.e. December, 2011 to February, 2016, the financial assistance is stated to be extended in favour of petitioner under non-plan scheme but subsequently same has been denied even that disbursement for the interregnum period will not accrue any vested right upon the petitioner in absence of any provision to that effect under 12th five year plan on the principle that even if any incorrect decision has been taken that cannot create any right in favour of the beneficiary and that cannot be taken a ground for issuance of direction by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the simple reason that power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only meant for issuance of direction in a case of any legal vested right. 12. The question would be that sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can any direction be issued upon the concerned respondents-Union of India to extend the benefit of financial assistance in absence of any provision of under the scheme or the rule. Admittedly, the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only in case of any legal vested right accrued to the parties. In absence thereof, there cannot be any direction by issuing writ of mandamus in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. We have gone across the order passed by the learned Single Judge and found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the contention raised by the appellants-UOI rather has come to the conclusion that the fact of admissibility of financial benefit has been admitted by the respondent, i.e., the appellant herein. But from where such conclusion has been arrived at that has not been observed in the impugned order and, as such according to our considered view the fact which led the learned Single Judge to come to the finding that the claim of the writ petitioner is admitted by the respondent-appellant herein is rendered to be error on record. 14. But from where such conclusion has been arrived at that has not been observed in the impugned order and, as such according to our considered view the fact which led the learned Single Judge to come to the finding that the claim of the writ petitioner is admitted by the respondent-appellant herein is rendered to be error on record. 14. This Court, on the basis of discussion made herein above and in the entirety of facts and circumstances, is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is without appreciating the factual aspect about applicability of scheme pertaining to financial benefits as also without appreciating that no legal vested right accrued in favour of the writ petitioner is absence of any scheme in this regard and therefore, there cannot be any mandamus without any legal vested right and, as such according to our considered view the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law and suffers from error. Accordingly, the part of order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has held the petitioner entitled for financial assistance from March, 2016 till date is quashed and set aside. 15. In the result, L.P.A. No. 19 of 2020 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 742 of 2019 16. This Court has considered the provision of Clause 8 and 9 of the revised scheme which was effective from 01.04.1992 in the preceding paragraphs wherein under the caption ‘Discontinuance of Allowance’ at Clause 8(d), wherein it has specifically been averred that ‘In the case of those Master Craftsmen who expired during the sanctioned terms of financial assistance their spouse can also be considered for continuation of financial assistance provided the application is submitted within 6 months of the death of the recipient and subject to above conditions. Admittedly, herein as has been admitted by the writ petitioner, the application has been filed beyond the period of six months and, therefore, there cannot be any direction contrary to the provision of law and taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge has refused to grant relief so far it relates to the disbursement of the financial assistance for the period June, 2009 to November, 2011. 17. 17. Accordingly, in our considered view the part of the order, whereby the respondents-UOI rejected the claim of the petitioner for disbursement of financial assistance in favour of writ petitioner from the month of June, 2009 to November, 2011, cannot be faulted with. However, apart from the reason of delay in filing such application the other and most important reason of denial of claim, according to us, is non-availability of any conditions in scheme as the reason of allowing intra-court appeal being L.P.A. No. 19 of 2020, referred above. In view thereof, that part of order is upheld. 18. In consequence thereof, L.P.A. No. 742 of 2019 is dismissed. 19. Resultantly, writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 6356 of 2014 is dismissed. 20. Consequent upon the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. No. 19 of 2020, I.A. Nos. 4595 of 2020, 812 of 2021 & 813 of 2021 stand disposed of.