STATE OF RATASTHAN versus MANGILAL PINDWAL

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 98 · Decided: 08-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF RATASTHAN 
v. 
MANGILAL PINDWAL 
JULY 8, 1996 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Rajasthan Se1vicc Rules, 1951-Compulsory Retirement-Rule 244 (2) 
C as amended by notification dated March 11, 1976-Validity of-Notification 
substituting sub-mle (2) repealed the provision that was operative during the 
pe1iod from Aug. 19, 1972 to Sep. I, 1975 and replaced it by another 
jJIOVision.-Whether can be held invalid on ground that an1endn1ent sought to 
an1e11d a }Jtovision 1vhich was not in existenc~Held, No-Repeal does not 
D affect previous operation of law which has been repealed during the pe1iod .it 
1vas operative prior to the date of re11ea/. 
The respondent, employed as an Upper Division Clerk with the 
Government of Rajasthan, after he completed 25 years of qualifying ser-
vice, was compulsorily retired by an order dated 31.3.1973 on payment of 
E three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. Along with the order 
passed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rules, a bank draft for a sum 
of Rs. 1,494 representing three months' pay and allowances was sent to the 
respondent. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the order. The 
petition was allowed by the High Court by an order dated 17.1.1978 on the 
F ground that there was non-compliance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) 
of Rule 244 of the Rules inasmuch as the amount paid to the respondent 
towards three months pay and allowances was short by Rs. 120. On 
28.1.1978 notification dated 11.3.1976 was published, substituting sub-rule 
(2) of Rule 244 of the Rules. The amendment which was operative from 
19.8.1972 and was to remain in force upto 1.9.1975, the requirement of 
G payment of three months'pay and allowances in lieu of notice at the time 
of compulsory retirement was dispensed with and it was prescribed that 
on retirement the Government servant would be entitled to claim three 
months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. On special appeal, the 
Division Bench of the High Court held that the amendment made in the 
H Rules vide notification dated 11.3.1976 was invalid. WJ1ile dismissing the 
98 
-
STATEv. M.P!NDWAL 
99 
appeal, it was held that as a result of the substitution of sub-rule (2) of A 
Rule 244 by notifications dated September 2, 1975 and November 26, 1975, 
provisions of sub- rule (2) of Rule 244, as applicable during the period 
from August 19, 1975 till September 1, 1975 stood substituted and, as a 
result, the said provisions ceased to exist and must be treated to have been 
obliterated and, therefore, Rule 244(2), as it stood on August 19, 1972, was B 
no longer available for suppression, amendment or substitution on March 
11, 1976, since the same stood amended and substituted by new provisions 
contained in notifications dated September 2, 1975 and November 26, 1975. 
This appeal had been filed against the decision of the Division Bench. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : As a result of repeal of a statute the statute as repealed ceases 
to exist with effect from the date of such repeal but the repeal does not affect 
the previous operation of the law which has been repealed during the period 
c 
it was operative prior to the date of such repeal. The effect of the amend-
ments that were introduced in sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan D 
Service Rules vide notifications dated September 2, 1975 and November 26, 
1975 whereby the said sub-rule was substituted with effect from September 
2, 1975 is that sub-rule (2) which was introduced on August 19, 1972 ceased 
to exist "ith effect from September, 2, 1975 but it was operative during the 
period from August 19, 1972 to September 1, 1975. A rule made in exercise 
of the power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution can have retroac· 
tive operation. Since sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rules, as introduced in 
August, 1972, was operative during the period from August 19, 1972 to 
September 1, 1975, it could be amended in exercise of the rule.making power 
under Article 309 of the Constitution so as to operate during the period 
from August 19, 1972 to Se1itember I, 1975. The notification dated March 
E 
F 
11, 1976, by substituting sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rules, repealed the 
said provision that was operative during the period from August 19, 1972 to 
September 1, 1975 and replace it by another provision which was to be 
operative during the said period. The said notification cannot be held to be 
invali
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.