RAJ KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 963 · Decided: 19-03-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
36 3 
RAJ.KUMAR 
v. 
UNION OF. INDIA & ORS. 
March 19, 1975 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965-Proviso to rule 5(1) 
-Retrospectil'e Amendment-Effect ·w. 
The services of the appellant, who was a: Government servant, were terminated 
forthwith and he was ordered to be.paid a month's pay and aliowances calculated 
at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the date 
on which the order of termination was served on him or, as the case may be. 
tendered to him. Having failed in departmental representations, the appellant 
filed a writ petition in the High Court. When the petition was before the 
High Court it was not brought to the notice of that court that the proviso to 
sub~r. (1) of.r. 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules 
1965 wa~ amended with retrospective effect from May 1, 1965. The High Court 
dismissed the petition in limine and granted certificat@ relying on the decision 
of this Court tn R.M.S. v. K. V. Gopinath which was not brought to its notice 
when the petitioner was dismissed. 
The amendment provided that the services of any Government servant may 
be terminated forthwith and on such termination he shaU be entitled to claim 
a sum equivalent ·to the amount of his pay plus a11owances for the period of 
the notice at the same rates at which he waos drawing them immediately before 
the termination of the services or as the case may· be for the period by which 
such notice falls short of one month. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
· 
HELD : (I) The effect of the amendment is that on· and from May 1, 1965 
as also Cin the date of the dismissal of the a:ppellant_it was not obfigatory to pay 
to him a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for the period 
of notice at the rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the termi-
nation of the services or as tl)e caS:.e. may be· for the period by which such notice 
falls short. The Government servant is only ~ntitled to claim the amount. The 
·effect of the amendment !s that the dedsion in Gopinatlz's case no longer holds 
good. [965 B-C] 
( 2) There is no doubt that the rule is a valid rule becal!lse it is now well 
established that rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution 
are legislative in character and, therefore, can' be given effect to retrospectively. 
[965 CJ 
(3) Once a law is given retrospective effect as from a particular date all 
actions taken under that law even before the amendment was made would be 
deemed to have b~en taken under the law as amended and there could be really 
no question of having to validate any action al.ready taken provided it is subse-
quent to the date from which the amendment was given retrospective effect. 
The question of the particular form of the validation would always depend on 
the circumstances of a case and no general formula can be devised 
for all 
circumstances. [965 H; 966 AJ 
In the in:;tant case the action taken. against the appellant was on a date 
subsequent to the date on which the amended rule took effect and, therefore, 
that action being in accordance with the amended rule, is a legally valid action 
and there is no need to have a validating provision. [966 BJ 
Pritlzvi Mills v. Broach Municipality [1970J 1 S.C.R. 388, held inapplkable. 
( 4) ·When action is taken against a government servant under the relcv~nt 
rules, which enable the authorities concerned to terminate his temporary services 
without assigning any reason, the Court would not go into the reasons which 
led to the services being terminated. [966 DJ 
964 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
£19751 3 s.c.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1730 of 1972. 
From the judgment and order dated the December 6, 1971 of the 
Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1261 of 1971. 
M. C. Bhandare, Govind Das, C. P. Lal, Kapil Sibal and A. N. 
A 
Goyal, for the appellant. 
B 
F. S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General for India and S. P. 
Nayar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALAGIRISW,AM:r, J.--The appellant was appointed as Airport Tick<:t 
Clerk in the Civil Aviation Department of the Government of India 
on 14.8.1967. 
On 15.6.1971 his services were terminated 'forthwith' 
and it was directed that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount 
of pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period 
of notice) calculated at the s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.