SHRI RAM PRASAD (DECEASED) BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 486 · Decided: 07-02-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SURI RAM PRASAD (DECEASED) BY HIS LEGAi. 
A 
REPRESENTATIVE 
I'. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
February 7, 1966 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J. K. N. WA1'Cl!OO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
P. SAITA1'ARAYANA RAJU, JJ.] 
Corutitutlon of India Art. 357(2)-"tllingJ done or omitr•d re be 
done"--Scope of. 
: Bank of l'mia/a Reg11latlon and Management Order, 1954-validity of. 
Rule 27 of Staff R11les framed thereunder-Whether violative of Art. 31 !-
Whether staO rules infringe Art. 14. Corporation-Whether niajoriJy ca" 
exercise po11-ers of. 
Patia/a Stale Reg11/ations-Applied to Bank employees by "ext<nsion"-
JVht1ther extension executive acr. 
On March 4, 1953, the President of India assumed powers of tbe 
Government of PEPSU (which in.eluded Patiala) under Article 356 of 
i11 Constitution. On February 27, 1954, in exercise of the powers vested 
in him by the Proclamation, the President issued the Bank of Patiala 
Regulation and Management Order 1954, to provide for the heller regu-
lation and management of the Bank. 
By virtue of the power. conferred 
upon it by Clause 4( 1) (iii) of the Regulation Order, the Board of 
Directors of tho Banlt framed certain Staff Rules. 
Rule 27 of which pro-
vided for compulsory retirement of employees of the Bank. ---
Tho appellanf, who was an employee of the Patiala State Bank wa• 
compulsorily retired hy an order of the Board under Rule 27 passed 
in June 1958. 
He challenged the order in a suit mainly on the ground 
that Rule 27 was illegal and void. 
The Trial Court granted a decree 
.ubstantially allowing the appellant's claim but on appeal, this decree W3' 
set aside by the High Coun. 
In the appeal to this Coun, it was contended on behalf of the appel-
lant, Infer alio, (i) that though the Regulation Order [Clause 4(l)(iii) of 
which delegated power to the Board of Directors of the Bank to frame 
staff rules) was made on February 27, 1954, it was not publi,hed in 
the Gazette until March 14, 1954, hy which time, in view of the revo-
cation of the proclamation on ~1arch 7, 1954. the powers of the Prc~i~ 
dent to make rules governing the service conditions of Government ser-
vants in the State had lapsed and the delegation by the President to the 
Board of the Power to frame rules had ipso facto come to an end. The 
Bo&Td therefore, bad no authority to frame the Slaff Rules on Moreb 
25, 1954 and to enforce them from April l, 1954; that in any event 
the Regulation Order v:ac; in effect and sub!itance a legislalive Act and, in 
,;.,w of the provisions of Anicle 3 57 (2), its operation could not extend 
beyond the period of one year specified in that Anicle; 
(ii) that prior 
to the promulgation of the Regulation Order in 1954 the Patiala State 
Regulations and other rules or orders. except the pension rules. made 
by the Ruler of Patiala. were applicable to the staff of the Patiala State 
Bank; the Staff Rules sought to supersede the provisions of the Patiala 
State Regulations and rules made by the Board. of Directota c~uld not 
abrogate the Regulations promulgated by the Rulor who exerciae6 the 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
-
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
' 
• 
' 
' 
_ .. 
, 
• 
" ' 
RAM PRASAD v. PUNJAB (Raju, J.) 
487 
A 
powers of the Legislature; (iii) that Rule 27 was unconstitutional as it 
offended the guarantee under Anicle 311 of the Constitution and the 
Staff Rules were also violativ·o of Article 14; (v) that the Board which 
promulgated the Staff Rules had not been properly constituted inasmuch 
as some of the Directors were not present at the meeting. 
B 
c 
D 
HELD : 
(i) Although the Regulation Order was made on February 
27, 1954 and was not published in the Gazette until March 14, 1954, 
the order itself provided for its commencement on the date on which it 
was made and it therefore came in to operation on February 27, 1954, 
i.e., before the termination of the President's Rule in PEPSU. 
On a consideration of the provisions of the Regulation Order, it is 
manifest that those provisions were made for the better regulation and 
management of the affairs of the Bank and it would be an absurdity to 
hold that some of the pro;isions would cease to be in operation after 
the period of one year specified in Art. 357(2); 
all the clauses of the 
Regulation Order, including Clause 4(1)(iii), come within the purview 
of the saving clause in Anicle 357(2) which preserves the validity of 
"things done or omitted to be done" before the expiratwn of tho period 
of one year after the proclaimation has 

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