I. N. SAKSENA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 23-01-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
I. N. SAKSENA 
\-', 
THE ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
lanuury 23, 1976 
237 
[A. N. RAY, CJ., M.H. BEG, R.S. SARKARIA AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Articles 245 & 246-Schedule seven-List II entrv 
41---lnlerpretation of legislative entries-subsidiary or ancillary to subjeCt 
covered by e11trie.1-J11dicial function and legislative function-Whet!ier legi:-J-
}ature can overrule a judicial pro1101111cen1e11t by a bare declaration-Whetlicr 
can remove basis of judicial pronouncement. 
The appellant v,ias a District & Sessions Judge. 
By a Memorandum dated 
28-2-1963, the State Government raised the age of compulsory retirement for 
Government servants to 58 years. The said Memorandum, however, empowered 
the Government to retire a Government servant after he attains tilel age of 5 5 
years. Thereafter, rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution 
were framed whereby the age of ~uperannuation was raised to 58 years. How-
ever the clause empowering the Government to retire a Government servant after 
the age of 55 years, was not incorporated in the said rules. 
The appellant was 
retired from service after he completed 55 years and before he completed 58 
years, The challenge to the said order of compulsory retirement succeeded in 
this Court. This cOu1t held on 23-1-1967 as under: 
"The appellant will be deemed to have continued in the service of 
the Government in spite of that order. As. however. the appellant 
attained the age of 58 years, in August, 1966, it is. not possible now to 
direct that he should be put in service. 
But he will be entitled to 
such benefits as may accrue now to him by virtue of the success of the 
Y.Tit petition. The appellant will get 
his 
costs from 
the State 
throughout." 
'fhereafter, an Ordinance .was pron1ulgated Which later on became an Act 
of the ~fadhya Pradesh Legislature. The said Act validated the retirement of 
certain Government servants including the appellant, despite the judgment of 
this Court. The act was made effective from 1st March 1963 and it ern~owered 
the Governn1ent to retire a Government servant on his attaining the age of 
5? years. 
The appellant again filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which was 
disn1issed. 
In an appeal the appellant contended before this Court : 
1. The Act hris heen passed to OVLrrulc a decision of this Court which the 
legislature has no power to do. 
2. The 1natter having once been decided by the Supreme Court was barred 
by the principle of res judicata. 
3. 
The Act gives naked PQ\Ver to the authorities to retire r..ny employee 
after he attains the age of 55 years and provides no guidelines for the exercise 
of the power. 
4. 
A right of property being a judgment debt protected by Article 19(1)(f) 
of the Constitution, the impugned Act could not have expropriated without pro-
viding for any compensation. It is ultnt vi res Article 31 (2) of the Constitution. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
5. 
1'he impugned Act is ultra vires the Constitution since it 5e'eks to vali-
date. the ret~r~ment .of the appel~ant and others l!ke him by changing their 
service conditions with retrospective effect. 
In doing so, the Legislature has 
H 
over-stepped the limits of legislative power. 
6. 
F.ve11 if the impugned Act is valid, on a proper construction it Jocs not 
vacate the decree of this Court. 
... 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976) 3 S.C.R. 
Dismissing th~ appeal by certificate under Article 132(1) and 133(1)(a) to 
(c), 
HELD : 1. The decree of this Court is not a money decree raising a iudg-
me?t debt. lt is a declaratory decree declaring that the order compulsorily 
retiring the appellant was invalid. The further declaration that he would be 
entitled to such benefits as might accrue to him by virtue of the succes'> of the 
Writ Petition, was only incidental or anciliary, to the main relief and will fall 
or stand with the same. 
[242 G-H] 
• 
2. The distinction between a Legislative act and a Judicial act is well known 
though in some s-pecific instances the line which separates one category from the 
other !f13V not he easily discernible. Adjudication of the rights of the parties 
accC?rd1ng to Jaw enacted by the Legislature is a judicial function. 
It is for the 
Legislature to lay down the law, prescribing norms of conduct which v.·iU govern 
part~cs and transactions and to require the court to give effect to that law. The 
Legislature ca1?-not br a. ~are d~c.laration, without more,

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