SATNAM SINGH AND ORS. versus PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1038 · Decided: 07-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SATNAM SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 7, 1997 
B 
(J.S. VERMA AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Punjab and Haryana High Court Establishment (Appointment and 
C Conditions of Services) Rules, 1973: Rules 16, 26, 27, 30, 34, Schedules /, 
I-A and III. 
Recruitment Rules-Conditions of service of officers and servants of 
High Court-Notification of-Date of coming into effec~Administrative and 
financial provisions only forwarded to Governor for approvaHleld: Finan-
D cial provisions only and not administrative provisions required approval of 
Governor-Hence, administrative provisions came into force from date fu:ed 
by Chief Justice whereas financial provisions came into force from date of 
notification in Official Gazette-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 229(2) 
proviso and 231. 
E 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Internal aids-Proviso-Held: To be strictly construed because it is an 
exception to the general rule. 
F 
The Chief Justice of the High Court made Rules known as the 
Punjab and Haryana High Court Establishment (Appointment and Con-
ditions of Service) Rules, 1973 in exercise of his powers under Article 
239(2) read with Article 231 of the Constitution. The Rules, which related 
to administration, were made applicable with effect from 1-3-1994 whereas 
G the Rules involving financial implications were referred to the Governor 
for approval as required under proviso to Article 229(2) of the Constitu-
tion. A notification for publication of the Rules in the Gazette of India was 
'l 
issued on 23-1-1975. Rule 16 prescribed quota for filling up of the posts 
.y 
and Rule 30 prescribed method of determining the seniority. The dispute 
in this appeal related to Rules 16 and 30 as to whether they came into force 
H from 1-3-1974 or from 23-1- 1975. 
1038 
•. 
SA1NAMSINGHv. PB.ANDHARYANAH.C. 
1039 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The proviso to Article 229(2) of the Constitution carves 
out the exception, requiring the approval of the Governor of the State only 
in respect of other rules "so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave 
or pensions". To read the proviso to require approval thereunder to the 
entire set of Rules including those which do not relate to "salaries, allowan-
ces, leave or pensions" would be to enlarge the scope of the proviso by 
reading into it more than what is enacted therein. The plain words of the 
proviso to Article 229(2) leave no doubt that the requirement of approval 
thereunder is confined to the rules only so far as they relate to salaries 
etc., and no more. It was open to the High Court to frame two sets of rules, 
one for administrative matters and the other for financial matters, and to 
refer only financial rules to the Governor for approval. The result cannot 
A 
B 
c 
be any different if only one set of rules is made by the Chief Justice 
incorporating both kinds of rules. Rules 16 and 30 of the Punjab and 
Haryatta High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Ser-
vice) Rules, 1973, being administrative provisions, came into force from D 
1-3-1974. [1043-C-D, 1044-B-C] 
Sunder Sham Kapoor & Ors. v. Hon'ble Chief Justice, Punjab and 
Haryana High· Court, (1987) 4 SLR 460 (P&H), referred to. 
2. A proviso has to be strictly construed inasmuch as it carves out 
an exception to the general rule. The general rule enacted in the main part 
is not to be unduly restricted by expanding the content of the proviso, 
which is intended to carve out the exception from the general rule. [1043-E] 
E 
" 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3705 of p 
1990 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.89 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 642 of 1987. 
H.N. Salve, V.C. Mahajan, Pradeep Gupta, K.K. Mohan, Gaurav G 
Jain, Ms. Abha Jain, P.P. Tripathi, Suresh C. Gupta, Ms. Rekha Pandey, 
Gaurav K. Banerjee and Naveen Prakash for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
J.S. VERMA, J. High Court Establishment (Appointment and Con-
H 
1040 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 1 S.C.R. 
A ditions of Service) Rules, 1973 (for short the "Rules") were made by the 
Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in exercise of 
powers conferred by Clause (2) of Article 229 read with Article 231 of the 
Constitution of India. By order dated March 18, 1974, the Chief Justice of 
the High Court made these rules applicable with effect from March 1, 1974; 
B and the rules involving
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.