UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus DILEEP KUMAR SINGH

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 882 · Decided: 26-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 882 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
DILEEP KUMAR SINGH 
(Civil Appeal Nos.2466-2467 of 2015) 
FEBRUARY 26, 2015 
rr.s. THAKUR AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, 
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 -
Proviso to s. 47 - Employee of Central Reserve Police Force 
(CRPF) permanently incapacitated - Relieved from serVice 
0 - Writ petition - High Court allowed the petition holding that 
the Notification dated 10.9.2002 issued under proviso to s. 
47 (exempting the CRPFfrom the rigours ofs.47) would be 
applicable only with reference to sub-section (2) of s. 47 
and not to the whole provision in view of the provisions uls. 
E 73(3) and (4)- On appeal, held: The proviso to s.47 would 
apply to the whole provision and not to sub-section (2) thereof 
alone - The proviso cannot be interpreted with reference to 
s. 73 - A proviso does not travel beyond the provision to 
which it is a proviso - Moreover, s.47 being the leading and 
F substantive provision and s. 73 being a subordinate and 
machinery provision,s. 47 will prevail - The exemption is 
based on intelligible differentia and has a rational relation 
with the object sought to be achieved i.e. "type of work" 
carried on in an establishment - Therefore, it is also not 
G discriminatory - The employee was rightly relieved from 
service - Service law. 
Interpretation of Statutes - The provisions of a statute 
H 
882 
UNION OF INDIA v. DILEEP KUMAR SINGH 
883 
must be read harmoniously - In case of conflict between A 
two Sections, when reconciliation thereof if not possible, it 
has to be determined as to which is leading and which is 
subordinate provision and as to which must given way to 
the other. 
B 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. One is to read Section 47 as a whole and 
being read as a whole it is clear from the proviso thereof 
that it would apply to "type of work" carried on in any c 
establishment and would, therefore, apply to both 
dispensing with service including reduction in rank as 
well as promotion. Section 47 proviso speaks of "this 
Section". The literal rule applied to this proviso would 
make it clear that it would apply to the entire Section, o 
for otherwise the words used would have been "this sub-
section". [paras 12 and 21] [892-F; 893-C-D] 
2.1. It is not correct that in vie.w of s. 73(3) arid (4), 
the proviso to s. 47 is only a proviso to sus-section (2) E 
of s. 47. T~ provisions of a statute must be read 
' 
harmoniously to~ther. However, if this is not possible, 
then where there ts. a conflict between two Sections, 
and the two cannot b~onciled, it ha~ to be determined 
which is the leading prov1slon a. nd which the subordinate F 
provision, and which musfgive way to the other. In the 
present case, Section 47 is the "leading provision" and 
Section 73 is the "subordinate provision". Further, 
Section 47 is a positive and clear provision. This is 
because, Section 47 is the substantive provision G 
· exempting the subject matter of Section 47 as a whole 
as opposed to Section 73 which is only a machinery 
provision by which notifications made under Section 47 
are to be laid before each House of Parliament. {paras 
15, 16 and 19] [893-H; 894-A-C: 896-H; 897-A-B] ·· 
H 
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Smt. Laxmi Devi v. Sethani Mukand Kanwar and Two 
Others, 1965 (1) SCR 726- relied on. 
Institute of Patent Agents & Ors. v. Joseph Lockwood, 
1894 A.C. 347; Project Blue Sky Inc. v. Australian 
s Broadcasting Authority, 153 ALR 490 - referred to. 
2.2. A proviso does not travel beyond the provision 
to which it is a proviso. Therefore, the golden rule is to 
read the whole Section, inclusive of the proviso, in such 
c manner that they mutually throw light on each other and 
result in a harmonious construction. [para 20] [897-8-C] 
Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf. 1976 (1) SCR 
277 = (1976) 1 sec 128 - relied on. 
D 
3. In what facts and circumstances the Government 
exercises its discretion taking into account the type of 
work in an establishment is obviously to be guided by 
the object for which the beneficial legislation is enacted 
together with balancing the need for exempting some 
E establishments from a part or the whole of the provisions 
of the Act. On a true construction, it is clear that the 
legislation has "given" the Government the power to 
exempt any establishment from the rigours of the Act 
F not only qua promotion but

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