LexTHE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR AND ANOTHER versus N. BAKSHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 505 (2)( i) of Bihar Annul Finance Act intended to effect a temporary amendment in the previous definition of the word "dealer" in cl( c) of s. 2 of the Act. The contention is therefore repelled. It was also submitted that the assent of the President was not given to the Bihar Annual Fin- ance Aot 1950. In our opinion that submission iJ equally without force because tax on sale of goo<ls is a matter entirely within entry 54 of the State List and the amendment made in the dtfini- tion of the word "dealer" in the Act did not require the assent of tho President. In our opinion the appeals and the petitions under Art. 32 are without merit and are therefore dismissed with costs. One hearing fee. Appecds and writ petitions dismissed. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR AND ANOTHER v. N.BAKSHI (B. P. SINHA, C. J., J. L. KAPUR, M. HmAYATULLAII, J.C. SHAH and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Indian Civil Service-Conditt'ona of Bl.rvfce-F'assage benefits-Statutory right-Constitutional guarantee-Cancella- tion of passage benefit• under ruk making pou·er-Validity- ' 1 Remuntration '', meaning of-Superior Oiv,il ServiceB (Revi- sion of pay and pension) Rule., 1924-Government of India Act, 1935 (25 & 36 Geo. 5, Oh.42), s. 247 (1) -Indian Inde- pendence Aet, 1947 (10 &. II Geo. 6, Oh. 30), ss. 10 (2), 19(4)- All India Services Act, 1!151 (61of1951}, ss. 3,4-Alt India Services (Ot•.r.eas pay, paa•age and leave sa/,ary) Ruka, 1957, r.3-0onstitution of India, Art. 314. Under the Superior Civil Services (Revision of Pay and Pension) Rules, 1924, framed by the Secretary of State for India-in-Council under the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919, members of the Indian Civil Service and their wivCJ and children were entitled to passage benefits which IHI J!/r. A'1otifJur_~ Zamindary c •. ( P) Ltd. v. Thi State of Bihar Kapur J. 11161 N •vembet 11. J9G1 T~ .iccountunl Grncrol, Bilrar v. N. BakJ;i 50li SUPREME C'OURT REPORTS [19G2] SUPP. were 1nadc part of the salary or rrrnuneration. By an a1ncnd- ment made in the Rules in 1926 the passage benefits, for pur· poses of administrative convenience ceased to be a part of the salary and Lecame allowances or privileges. They were aepa· ra1ely credited to the account of members of the Indian Civil Sci vice and debited as and when they were availed of out of the general revenues of the State. The conditions of sc1·vice to which members of the Indian Civil Service were entitled under the Government of India Act, 1919, were guaranteed 10 them by s.247(1) of the Goverrunent of India Act, 1935, and this guarantee was confirmed by 1. 10(2) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. By Art. 314 of the Constitution of India penons who were appointed by the Secretary of State lo a civil service of the Crown in India anrl continued on and <after the: co1nmcnccn1cnt of the C'~nstitutiJn to serve under the Go,·ei urnent of India or of a Stale were to receive from the GO\crnmenl of India and the Government of the State which they ,,·rrc from time to time serving, the saine <..:onditions of sc1,·ice as respects ren1uneration, leave and pension ""·hich they were enti!led to immediately before such commencement. On F<Lruarr 5, 1957, the Government of India framed, in exer- cise of the powers conferred by the All India Services Act, 1951, the All India Services (Overseas Pay, Passage and Leave Salary) Rules, 1957, by r. 3 of which the passage benefits pro- vide<l by the Rules of 1924, as amended in 1926, ceased, with re1rospec1ive effect from July 12, I 95G, to apply lo the members of the Iudian Civil Service. 1'he respondent \vho was ac.hnit- tcd to the Indian Civil Service in 1924 and continucd to set vc in tlte State of l!ihar after independence challenged the 'ali- d1ty of the rule. /Jeld, that r. 3 of the All India Services Overseas l'ay, l'as~agc and Leave Salary Rules, 1957, \\as ultra virc.!. The right to passage benefits was a part of the remune- ration earned by the mcn1bcrs of the ln<lian Civil Service, and as the conditions of service as to rcn1uneration had been gua- ranteed by Art. 314 of the Constitution of India, the Central Government in exercise of its ntlc making power could not dcstory or cancel a constitutional guarantee. The word 11rc1nuncration" in Art. 314 of the Con~titu .. tiun explained. R. v. Po1tma.sltr Gtn<ral, (1876) I Q.l!.D. 658, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURI8DICTIO!!I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.