Trace Your Case

Category: Retrospective Application

Categories
Retrospective Application

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Tikam Das AIR 1975 SC 1429

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH V. TIKAM DAS

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Tikam Das AIR 1975 SC 1429

ISSUE:

  • Whether the State Government has the authority to retrospectively apply enhanced license fees on the balance stock of intoxicants held by a licensee after the expiry of the license period?
  • Whether the balance stock of liquor, already subjected to the license fee at the time of its initial purchase, can be subjected to an enhanced fee retrospectively?

RULE:

  • Subordinate legislation, such as rules made by a delegate, can be given retrospective effect if explicitly or implicitly authorized by the parent statute.
  • The principles of equity and consistency in taxation justify applying enhanced fees to surplus stock retained by the licensee, ensuring parity with other vendors operating under the revised fee structure?

FACTS:

  • The respondent, Tikamdas, operated a bar in Indore under a license issued in Form F.L. 3 under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915. This license was valid from April 1, 1963, to March 31, 1964.
  • On the expiration of the license period, the respondent had a significant quantity of surplus liquor stock that remained unsold in his licensed premises.
  • The respondent applied for and obtained a fresh license for the subsequent year starting April 1, 1964, to continue his bar operations.
  • Meanwhile, the State Government amended the Foreign Liquor Rules on April 25, 1964, increasing the scale of license fees. The amendment was given retrospective effect from April 1, 1964.
  • A new provision in the amended rules required licensees to pay the difference in fees for balance stocks if the scale of fees was enhanced during or after the license period.
  • The State Government demanded that the respondent pay the enhanced license fees for the liquor stock that remained in his possession as of March 31, 1964, under the retrospectively applicable amended rules.
  • The respondent contested the demand, arguing that the surplus stock had already been subjected to license fees at the earlier rate and could not be retrospectively charged at the enhanced rate.
  • The respondent filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, asserting that the demand for enhanced fees violated his rights and lacked legal basis.
  • The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that the retrospective levy of enhanced fees on the surplus stock was unlawful.
  • The State of Madhya Pradesh, as the appellant, challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court by special leave petition, arguing that the amended rules allowed for retrospective application and justified the demand for enhanced fees.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court held that subordinate legislation, such as rules framed under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, can have retrospective effect if explicitly or implicitly authorized by the parent statute.
  • The Court ruled that Sections 62 and 63 of the Excise Act empowered the State Government to promulgate rules and implement them retroactively. The amended Foreign Liquor Rules were validly applied from April 1, 1964.
  • The Court observed that the rule mandating the payment of enhanced fees on balance stock upon amendment was clear and enforceable. The surplus liquor stock held by the respondent as of March 31, 1964, fell within the scope of the retrospective rules.
  • The Supreme Court rejected the respondent’s argument that surplus stock could not be subjected to enhanced fees, reasoning that such an exemption would result in an unequal burden on vendors. New licensees beginning with fresh stock would be charged higher fees, creating inconsistency.
  • The Court emphasized that the respondent was permitted to retain the surplus stock under specific conditions, including the liability to pay any fee differences arising from subsequent enhancements.
  • The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s ruling, holding that the State was within its rights to levy the enhanced license fees on the respondent’s surplus stock.
  • The appeal was allowed, but the Court directed both parties to bear their own costs, considering the relatively minor financial implications of the dispute.
Categories
Retrospective Application

Miss Raj Soni v. Air Officer In-Charge AIR 1990 SC 1305

MISS RAJ SONI V. AIR OFFICER IN-CHARGE

Miss Raj Soni v. Air Officer In-Charge AIR 1990 SC 1305

ISSUE:

  • Whether the petitioner, as an existing employee prior to the enforcement of the Delhi Education Act, 1973, and Rules, was entitled to retire at the age of 60 years instead of 58 years as determined by the school management?
  • Whether the respondent school, despite being a private and unaided institution, was legally bound to uniformly apply statutory provisions under the Delhi Education Act and Rules to its employees?

RULE:

  • Statutory provisions governing service conditions, including retirement age, are binding on recognized private schools, regardless of whether they are aided or unaided, and such provisions must be applied uniformly.
  • Existing employees are entitled to retain the more favorable service conditions, such as a higher retirement age, provided under prior applicable frameworks, and any deviation is impermissible under the statutory framework.

FACTS:

  • The petitioner, Miss Raj Soni, was appointed as a teacher in the Air Force Central School, New Delhi, in 1956.
  • Initially employed on a five-year contract, her service was renewed for another five years in 1961, after which she continued as a regular employee.
  • The Delhi Education Code, 1965, which governed the conditions of service for school teachers, prescribed 60 years as the age of superannuation.
  • In 1973, the Delhi Education Act and Delhi Education Rules came into force, fixing the retirement age at 58 years for teachers in recognized private schools. However, existing employees were entitled to retain the higher retirement age of 60 years if previously applicable.
  • The petitioner was made to retire on October 31, 1981, upon attaining the age of 58 years, contrary to her claim of entitlement to retire at 60 years under the provisions of the Code and Act.
  • The school management, while denying her claim, stated that it followed the practice of retiring teachers at 58 years, with certain exceptions.
  • The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, asserting that her retirement violated her statutory rights under the Delhi Education Act and the rules, and that she was discriminated against compared to similarly situated employees.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to retire at the age of 60 years as per the Delhi Education Code, which was accepted and followed by the school before the enactment of the Delhi Education Act and Rules.
  • The provisions of the Act and Rules mandated uniform application, and the school management, being under a statutory obligation, could not defy these provisions or selectively retire employees at different ages.
  • The Court rejected the argument that the school’s management was not bound by the statutory rules as it was not a “State” or “authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
  • The Court found that the school had retired other similarly situated teachers at 60 years but arbitrarily and discriminatorily retired the petitioner at 58 years.
  • The Court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner her salary and allowances for the additional two years of service, along with recalculating her post-retirement benefits as if she had retired at 60 years.
  • The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was awarded relief, with costs borne individually by the parties.
Categories
Retrospective Application

A.V. Nachane v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1126

A.V. NACHANE V. UNION OF INDIA

A.V. Nachane v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1126

ISSUE:

  • Whether retrospective legislation or rules can nullify a binding Supreme Court judgment and override rights already accrued?
  • Whether the LIC (Amendment) Act, 1981, and the rules made under it violate constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)?
  • Whether the delegation of legislative power under the LIC (Amendment) Act, 1981, is excessive or lacks sufficient legislative guidance?

RULE:

  • Retrospective legislation cannot nullify a binding judicial mandate or accrued rights unless expressly provided for and constitutionally valid.
  • Legislative delegation is valid if sufficient policy guidance is provided, ensuring clear limits on the exercise of delegated powers.
  • Laws are valid under Article 14 if classifications are reasonable and not arbitrary and under Article 19(1)(g) if restrictions serve the public interest and are justified.

FACTS:

  • The Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) was established under the LIC Act of 1956 to nationalize life insurance and transfer the business of private insurers to the LIC.
  • Two settlements were reached in 1974 between LIC and its Class III and IV employees, providing for an annual cash bonus at 15% of salary. These settlements were effective from April 1, 1973, to March 31, 1977, and were binding until superseded by fresh settlements, awards, or legislation.
  • In 1975, the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 1976, prohibited bonus payments to LIC employees. LIC, under Central Government instructions, stopped bonus payments for 1975-76.
  • The employees challenged this action in the Calcutta High Court, which issued a writ of mandamus directing LIC to comply with the terms of the 1974 settlements.
  • In Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court declared the 1976 Act unconstitutional under Article 31(2) of the Constitution and upheld employees’ rights to bonuses for 1975-76 and 1976-77.
  • On March 31, 1978, LIC issued notices under the Industrial Disputes Act, terminating the settlements and modifying regulations to prohibit bonuses. The employees challenged these actions in the Allahabad High Court, which struck them down.
  • The Supreme Court, in D.J. Bahadur v. LIC (1981), held that the 1974 settlements were binding and could not be unilaterally terminated. It issued a writ mandating LIC to honor the settlements until replaced by fresh agreements, awards, or legislation.
  • On January 31, 1981, the LIC (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, was promulgated, amending the LIC Act with retrospective effect from June 20, 1979. This amendment empowered the Central Government to make rules regarding employee terms, overriding earlier settlements and laws.
  • The Central Government issued the LIC Class III and IV Employees (Bonus and Dearness Allowance) Rules, 1981, barring bonuses retrospectively from July 1, 1979, and substituting payments in lieu of bonuses under restricted terms.
  • Employees filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the ordinance, the LIC (Amendment) Act, 1981, and the rules, alleging violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21, and questioning the retrospective nullification of a binding Supreme Court decision.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court held that the LIC (Amendment) Act, 1981, and the rules issued under it could only operate prospectively from February 2, 1981, the date of publication of the rules.
  • Rule 3 of the 1981 Rules, which retrospectively barred bonuses from July 1, 1979, could not override the Supreme Court’s prior writ in D.J. Bahadur v. LIC, which required LIC to honor the 1974 settlements until superseded by valid legislation.
  • The employees were entitled to bonuses earned before February 2, 1981, under the 1974 settlements.
  • The Court rejected the contention that the 1981 Act and rules violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21, holding that sufficient legislative guidance was provided, and no excessive delegation of power occurred.
  • The petitioners failed to establish hostile discrimination under Article 14, as they could not demonstrate that LIC employees were similarly situated to employees in other public sector establishments.
  • The petitions were allowed in part. The LIC (Amendment) Act, 1981, and the 1981 Rules were declared valid but could only operate prospectively from February 2, 1981. LIC was directed to pay bonuses earned by employees under the 1974 settlements up to February 1, 1981. No costs were awarded.
Categories
Retrospective Application

B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana AIR 1981 SC 561

B.S. YADAV V. STATE OF HARYANA

B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana AIR 1981 SC 561

ISSUE:

  • Whether the principle of judicial independence under Article 235 restricts the Governor’s legislative authority under Article 309 in framing service rules for judicial officers?
  • Whether the quota rule for recruitment can constitutionally extend to confirmations and seniority, as governed by service rules?
  • Whether retrospective amendments to service rules violate the constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness under Articles 14 and 16?

RULE:

  • Judicial independence limits the Governor’s powers to the legislative framing of general rules, leaving their application and implementation to the High Court.
  • The quota system is restricted to recruitment and cannot be extended to confirmation and seniority without explicit statutory authority.
  • Retrospective amendments to service rules must satisfy the test of reasonable nexus and must not arbitrarily prejudice any class of officers.

FACTS:

  • The petitioners were promoted officers of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) elevated to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service between 1967 and 1968. Respondent 3, a direct recruit from the Bar, was appointed as a District and Sessions Judge on July 7, 1970, and confirmed on July 7, 1972, after completing a two-year probation period. The petitioners, despite having longer service, were confirmed a day later, resulting in the loss of seniority.
  • Recruitment and service conditions for judicial officers were governed by the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963. Rule 8 stipulated a 2:1 quota for promotees and direct recruits, while Rule 12 determined seniority based on confirmation dates. 
  • After Haryana’s formation in 1966, the 1963 Rules were adopted with amendments. Haryana amended Rule 12 in 1972, prioritizing seniority based on continuous service. However, in 1977, the state reverted to a confirmation-based criterion. Punjab retrospectively amended Rule 12 in 1976, switching to continuous service as the determinant for seniority.
  • The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, administering the judicial services of both states, adopted a rotational system for confirmations.
  • This system delayed confirmations for promotees to maintain the 2:1 quota, often favoring direct recruits and creating disparities in seniority.
  • In Punjab, promoted officers faced similar issues. Direct recruits were confirmed earlier, often before completing probation, while promotees, despite officiating for years, waited for confirmation.
  • Cause of Action: The petitioners argued that the High Court’s rotational confirmation system and the inconsistent application of Rule 12 violated their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They claimed that delaying their confirmation to accommodate direct recruits disregarded service rules and principles of fairness.
  • The High Court’s rotational confirmation system led to grievances among promotees, who alleged arbitrary delays in confirmation.
  • In 1972, Haryana amended Rule 12 to prioritize continuous service for seniority but reverted to confirmation-based seniority in 1977. These changes caused confusion and administrative challenges.
  • Respondent 3’s confirmation was contested in Narendra Singh Rao v. State of Haryana. A special bench of the High Court held that the Governor had the authority to confirm judicial officers. The Supreme Court later reversed this, affirming that confirmation authority rested with the High Court under Article 235.
  • The retrospective amendments to Rule 12 in Punjab and Haryana created disparities in seniority determination across the states. Petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging these amendments and the High Court’s administrative practices as unconstitutional and discriminatory.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court held that the Governor’s legislative authority under Article 309 to frame service rules is valid but subject to the High Court’s administrative control under Article 235. The High Court retains exclusive authority over the confirmation of judicial officers and the determination of probation completion.
  • The Court ruled that the quota rule under Rule 8 applies strictly to recruitment and cannot extend to confirmation or seniority. Confirmation must adhere to service rules and cannot be arbitrarily delayed to accommodate quotas or rotational systems.
  • The Court emphasized that seniority must be determined by continuous service in a post, irrespective of confirmation dates. Delaying confirmation for promotees to prioritize direct recruits was found to violate Articles 14 and 16, which guarantee equality in service matters.
  • The Court declared that the retrospective amendments to Rule 12 in Punjab and Haryana were invalid as they lacked reasonable nexus, disrupted judicial independence, and were made without proper consultation with the High Court.
  • The Court found the rotational system for confirmations unconstitutional, as it contradicted the judicial decisions of the High Court and undermined the principles of fairness and equality.
  • The Supreme Court directed a uniform application of seniority rules across Punjab and Haryana to eliminate inconsistencies, uphold fairness, and reinforce judicial independence. This decision balanced legislative authority with the High Court’s constitutional control, ensuring the equitable treatment of judicial officers.