LexEX. CAPT. K.C. ARORA AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
....... _) EX. CAPT. K.C. ARORA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND. OTHERS April 26, 1984 6Z3 [0. CHINNAPPA REDDY; E.S, VENKATARAMIAll AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] . The Punjab Government Nationai Emergency (Concessions) Rules 1965 Rules 2, and J(ii), as amended by the Haryana Government Gazette Notification No . . GSR 77/Const/AFt 309/Am.end/(1)/76 dated August 9, 1976 amending the definition of the experession "Mifitar ::,ervice'' in Rule 2, Constitutional Validity-The vested accrued right of a Government Servant cannot be taken· away by making. amendments of the rules with retrospective effect. In 1962 an emergency was imposed by the Government of India on account of_tbe external aggression by the Chine;e· forces 'in the Indian T~rritory. The Government was in great need of youogmen to join the military service at the risk of their lives to serve the nation to cope with the emergc:ncy needs of the Government-of India. The Government of India as well as ·the State Governments decided to give certain ben·efits to encourage the young energetic youths to join military service at the critical juncture o~ national emergency and therefore issued different circulars and advertisements on radio and tbe'.press promising certain bene~ts to youngmen who join tho mi!ifary service at the critical junCture. Later on, on the instructions of the Central Government concessions as were promised through circula~s and by 'other. means were incorporated in. the rules framed by the joint Punjab ·Government under Article 309 of the Constitution, titled as. "The Punjab National EmergencY (Concessions) Rules. 1965." Keeping' in view the needs of the country and assurances and .concessions contained in conditions of service in executive instructions, the petitioners and appellants and many others like them joined the army· during-· the emergency as· commissioned office.rs in 19.63-64 and had rendered more than five years of service reckoned from 26.10.1982 i. e. date of proclama- tion of emergency and after their release froni the Army they were _entitled to benefits vested' in them undez the conditions of service. The petitioners and appellants and a number of others similar to the petitioner~; joined the Haryana· Government as Assistant Engineers. ·conse- · quent upon their appointments against tlie vacancies reserved for ex-army Officers, they became entitled to get their seniority fixed giviog them the benefit or their military service; but the gradation list prepared however did · not include their miltary service for the· purposes o( . fixation of their seniorit~. The State of Haryana just to deprive the petitioners and others similarly situated, of mil]tary service, amended the Jules with retrospective- effect from November 1,1966 vide Haryana ·Government Gazette Notifica- tion No. GSR 77/Const/Art 309/Amendj(l)/76 dated March 22,1976 illtroclucing a proviso to rule 4 (ij) qf the 1965 Rules and vide Haryana' l 9pvcrnment Ga~~tte N oti~cation No· G~R 182/Const/ Art ~09/ Ar:nend/(2)/. J A B D E G H A. I 0 E 624 SUPREME COU"R T REPORTS (1984] 3 s.c.R. 76 dated 'August 9,1976. amending Rule 2 of the 1965 Rules. These · notifications restricted the benefits· of military service upto January 10, 19(i8 the date on which the fir~t emergency ,~a; lifted with the result that the vested rights· which accrued to the petitioners io l969, 1970 and 1971 ·have been· taken away. The two writ pe itions Nos. WP 2065/1976·and WP 2065/1976 an<:l WP 1088/1980 challenging the same were dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and hence their appeals Nos. CA 3095 and 3096/1980 by way of special leave. Some others directly filed petitions in the Supreme .Court under Art 32 and they are WPs 6437 and 6436 of 198'0. Allowing the appeals and the Petitions, t~c Court HELD.: 1:1. The Parliament as also the· State; Legislature have plenary powers to legislate within the field of legislation committed to them and subject to certain constitutional restrictions they can legislate pros· · p'ect.ively as well as retrospectively. [63ZC-D] . 1:2. It is, however, a cardinal principle of construcrioo that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expre>sly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect, But tho rule in general is applicable where the obj~ct of the statute is to affect the vested rights or to impose new burden or to impair existing obligations; Up less· t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.