Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Smt Akkamahadevamma C B on 18 November, 2010
Bench: N.Kumar, S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBEEEQT:Q]; ./ %
PRESENT _ ' V '% "
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT:it§E'E _
THE HON'BLE S
WP N05. 20914/2010' & 2343:?«£52/2o'i£3"{s;1§AT)
WP Nos. 20914/2010 &
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF'r{ARNA'ijAKA_;\..__ '
DEPARTMENTVQF PRIMARY " I
AND HIGHER Eff-.rT~CATION\,
REPRESENTED BY 1TS8_EC_RETARY.
MS. 1BU11;D1NG;f"-»._E" '
DR. AMBEDKARV[EED~HI;'«
EANGALQ_RE_---1';_ '
_ 2. STATEE*OF KARNATAKA,
' " _ D-EPAETMENT OEPERSONNEL AND
, 'ADIvII1\2IS'1'R;/--'{,I'IVE REFORMS.
_ =v1_DHA1\IA S0._U'DHA,
" .3-A_NG2x1fi;oREr:;'4" 1 .
V V' '3. D--;EPU"f'Y DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC INSTUCTIONS.
..C,?-HTRADURGA.
T4'. VTIEEDEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS.
' E »-DAVANGERE.
5.
6.
{SMT. SHEELA KRISHNA. AGA'.'v,.;]':
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS.
KOPPAL DISTRICT AND TALUK.
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
BELLARY.
R' .,. PET"Ij1'I.QNERSA
AND:
1.
SMT. [email protected].:B. ._ ._ "
W/OTHIMMEGOWDA..__' V. .V
AGEDABOUT37 .,
RESIDING AT ;§iOBA:.pLiIRA VILLAGE--«~'
AND POS"£","B_AGUR}i.Q13LI, ' ' »
CHANNARA'ft_'A;PATN' .4'T-A;L¥JIg,--
HASVSAN_I3IS'1'R1E:C_3T. _ j ' * ---
SR1 CR. ASHC'-K,' " '-
AGED«ABOU'I'_3l*~l
RESIDIT=ICx"A.T CHAVENAHALLI,
NAVILE 1:>t2s_1 BAGUR HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN 'DISTRIC'T';' '
._ V./f_,f'.OV
'AGEDABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDIN-G" AT KARI
THIMMARAYANA BEEDHI KOTE.
.. HQLENARASIPURA TALUK.
_ HAS-SAN DISTRICT.
fDAKSHAYANI,
w/0 S.N. KRISHNE GOWDA.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
SASALUPARA.
' KOPPALU, NALLUR POST.
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK.
HASSAN DISTRICT.
*
(By SR1 M.S. BHAGWAT AND SR1 D_., .RAVANESffi;"Af13VS.;'}:A'V WP NO. 23437 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAEA, A DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY "
AND HIGHER EDUCATIQN, REPRESENTED BY ~ ' M.S.BUILD1Ncr,'--A_ r A DR. AMEEDKA1RVEEDfI_I, _ "
2. STATE OE _ DERARTME PE'RSO.NNEL AND REIifoRMs, REPRESENTED B'11'TS"'SECRETARY. VIDI"iANA~SO"UD';T~1A;'v_ ' "
BANGALORE. 7 1.
'13; DIRECTOR oEDARU,BLIc,J1NSTUc'rIoNS. A . "S_HIMO€2;A DISTRICT, ¥_(SMT. SRIEELA KRISHNA, AGAJ ' ASHIMOGA,
- PETITIONERS $MT."L.M. MAHADEVAMMA.
..W/O SHANMUKHA B.G., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT BORNAHALLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK.
HARIHARAPURA POST, HOLEKOTE HOBLI.
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 211.
3 [By SRI M.S. BHAGWAT AND SR1DVi».14PA5§/':'fl§¥E;'?,.I«f,'~ADVL"3[;}..A WP NO. 23438 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
1. THE DEPUTY DIREC'i'0R, _ .. -
OF PUBLIC INsTR1;cT2¢N.S,"" 2 " ' SHIMOGA DIS'1"'RICT,,~"""»,f -
SHIMOGA, r
2. THE DEPUTY c'0M_M1'ss-sI0NERV,--V» HASSAN DISTRICT, ~ "
3. STATE OF DEPARTMENT 'Q? PERSONNEL AND ADMINIS'I'RA'I'IVE REFORMS, REPRESENTED BY Iirs SECRETARY. VIDHA.NA SOUDHIXI 3,3 'BANGALORE--- 1.
3 PEITTIONERS (SMT: SHEE-LA KRISHNA, AGA. ,) fVAND:2 ..
"..fs'Rm., DWAKAR, S./O. HALAGE GOWDA, « AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, A RESIDING AT LUKKURU.
" RAMANATHAPURA HOBLI, ~ ' ARAKALAGODU TALUK, I [SMT,%gSuI~iEELA AGA. ,} HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN ~«--~ 573 150.
RESPQND'Emj (By SR1 M.S. BI-IAGWAT AND SR1 D. PAvANESH_I.--ADvS;'g'I . VVP NO. 23439 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
we I MSTATE OF KARNATAKA, '
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY," A DEPARTMENT OE PERSONNEL AND I ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMSEI. SERVICE, ' VIDHANA SOUDHA; 5 . " A. BANGALORE. - '
2. THE DEPUTYIDIRECTOR' _ OF PUBLIC! 1N'STUc"rIoN'S, _' A .
RAICHUR. 5 '
3. THEDEPUTY CDMMISSSIONER, HASSAN 'DIS'1"RICT,. " " "
HASSANT.I_ * " V "~ PETITIONERS TSRI'-TtRjR"*Li'IvIUR3'ITiY M.G. S/Q GURUMALLARPPA MB.
V V' _ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 2_MOTAN.AY;AK,ANAHALLI NIDUVANI (P) JDIOIIENARASIPURA, A WHASSAN DISTRICT.
.. . RESPONDENT SR1 M.S_ BHAGWAT AND SRI D. PAVANESH, ADVS.,] E'/I WP NO. 23440 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC IINST73OC.'%M§ CHITRADURGA.
HIRIYUR {SI\/IT. SHEELA KRISHNA, AGA.,)....0}._ ' AND:
sRI G.T. VENKATESH, A S/O THIMMAP:PA.;.._V _ i AGED ABOUT 35 _ RAMAOIRI, " ' H0IIAI.KERE0V'fALU--K__..._ Rf"
CHTTRADUROA»DIs'rRI<:;T.«..,_ % I THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, A HIRIYURTALUK, PETITI;)NERs ... RESPONDENT {By SR1 2'Xl:0\:I_E)'SRI D. PAVANESH, ADVs.,) WP IsIO."2..3441 OE2O1o§ I 1.0 THE ~S'T:ATE";O.E KARNATAKA, " REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND I VIDRANA SOUDHA.
V BANGALORE .
"THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ._ * OF PUBLIC INSTUCTIONS, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE.
AD;?[IIN.ISTRATIVE REFORMS 8: SERVICE,
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSSIONEYR. HASSAN DISTRICT.
HASSAN.
PETITIONERS [SMT. SHEELA KRISHNA, AGA..) AND:
SMT. RENUKA.
W/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. KANAJANAHALLI.
HERAGU POST.
LUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT, [By SR} M.S. BHAGWAT sgiil §A\fA.NEsH, Af)vs.,) WP Nos. 23442 -- 45 OF 201}; I I I I BETWEEN: '
1. STATE OF KARI*JATAKA}'_.*EV DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. R£§1'PRE-SENTED¢BY ITS SECRETARY. Mqs. i_B.U1'LDING, """
I AM}3ED.KAR VEEDHL I 3:1.
2;' '.sTATE OI*l_KI1\RNATAI{A, R'LtPR.Es;::NTED BY ITS SECRETARY. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
-« .. A_DM1NISTRAT1VE REFORMS, VVVIDHANA SOUDHA.
BANGALORE-- 1.
do THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTUCTIONS, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, ':'3}<§$=;
SI-IIIVEOGA.
. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, RAICHUR DESTRICT, RAECHUR.
. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS.
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
CHIKKAJWAGALUR. ' -
. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTEO1\ESV,_------- BELLARY DISTRICT; 5 ~ BELLARY. " 'I - ' AND: ---- I I
1. SR1 SR." ' S/O RAME GOWEA, ' __ AGED ABOUT 29 REsIDING"AT SOMAPURA, LA--1{KUR POST,-» , RANIAI\IA'IHAPURA"H0BLI, » _TALUK.
' I~IAs$A:§I 'DISTRICT.
.' s_R:
s"/0 PRAKASH.
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
A IEESIDING ATTHEJUR VILLAGE, = '_ V. HALLI MYSORE POST, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK.
I-IASSAN DISTRICT, " HASSAN.
3. SR1 K.R. GIRISHA, S/O RAMALINGE GOWDA.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
RESIDING AT KOWLAIIALLI, HARADUR POST.
HIRIYAPATANA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT. ._
4. SRI A.C.NANDISH.
S/O CHANDRE GOWDA. _ AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, * ' ADAGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, « CHANNARAYAPATNATALUK; " ._ HASSAN DISTRICT» 5fz3'1;_6. , ' ~ * '»RE;SPONDENTS (By SR1 M.S. BRAGWAT DQRAvAIfvESH, ADvS.,) WP NO. 23446 'C)F£2'{)'3Vi_().: ' '
1. STATE OF PRIMIRAY AND 'SECONDARY EDUCATION. BUILDING BANGALORE.
BEPRESEENTED BYITS A SvECRf3-TAIKY TO GOVERNMENT.
"DIRECTOR . D-ERAR'I_IvI_EI$IT* OF PUBLIC INSTUCTIONS, TUMKURRORTII, M"UDRUGI'RI.
4.. I THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, " , HASSAN DISTRICT, I * -4.fTIIE BLOCK EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, RAVAGADA TALUK, PAVAGADA. \ .-
\// 10
5. THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH. TUMKUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTWE OFFICER. PETITIONERS {SMT. SHEELA KRISHNA, AOA.,) :
AND:
SMT. HR BHAGYAMMA.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O SR1 P.T. SWAMY, : ' AT PRESENT FORT HOLENARASIPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT, ' _ PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, --- ._ _ GOVERNMENT PRIMARY AND S1F§CO_NDARY' «- SCI-IOOL, YELLESHPURA, " ' "
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK; _ I "
HASSAN'D1STR1'CTi::::,: " 1' % _ ...RESPONDENT {By SR1 M'.S.'B%HAOWiATE 1:). PAVANESH, ADVS.,] WP NO_.,234zi7' OR 2016: 'E '. A. H ..... .. 7 '13tERijT§?"COMM1SS1ONER. " _ O1uLBAROA.1:;1STR1CT, <:;_ULBAROA¢- 585 101.
THE DIRECTOR OF E .. PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS. if V KOPPAL DISTRICT, _ KOPPAL.
{S-MT. SHEELA KRISHNA, AGA.,] PETITION ERS V. {Sm}. AGA.,) 11 AND:
SMT. LAXIVII BA1,
1)/0 REVANASIDDAYYA, W /0 RAJASEKHAR I-IIREMATH.
AGE : 34 YEARS, occ: UN--E1\/IPLOYED, R/O TEACHERS COLONY, I JEWARGI TQ: JEWARGI, GULBARGA DISTRICT. _ ' -
{By SR1 M.S. BHAGWAT AND SRITJ.,pA,yANEsH:,,_ApiJs.,) WP NO. 23448 OF 2010;QT _ h .
BETWEEN: 'V GULBARGAD.ISTR;C'1';._y«.._
1. THE DEPUTY t;}33aMiSsiOI§E:§.-_ " "
GULBARG-.AV%,5{35 101., Q ' V H
2. THE DEPIJTY--DI'RECTQR~» .01? PUBLIC'*ENSTRUC'UONS',» YADGIR GULBARGA DISTRICT.
._ 'i. .. . A . . . . . ..' ' . ' _ SMT;'---VIdAY1*\j;,AKSHMI. V ,1) /0 AENARAYAGOUDA, . _AGE: ZSYEARS, '''.OCC'E''~fJN-EMPLOYED. . R/G YENKANCHI VILLAGE.
TALUK: JEWARGI, ' DESTRICT: GULBARGA.
RESPONDENT & BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. AGA.,] 1.2 [By SR1 IIVLS. BHAGWAT AND SR1 D. PAVANESH, ADVS.,) WP NO. 23449 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, , DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, VIKASA SOUDBA.
BANGALORE -- 1.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY», EDUCATION, NEW PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING, * NRUPATHUNGA ROAEDX _ ;
BANGLORE-- 560 001. *
3. THE DEPI_JT'1{'_ DIRE"CTOR",' ,_ I DEPARTMENT (REPUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, CHIC3KBALL}'3PUR,~ 362.._},O1_, I BANGALORE DISTRICT.
4. THE BLOCK,EEUE;4I'IT(:j1'I OFFICER, OFFICE OF TIIE ' CI.IICI<BALLARI,I,R ----562 101, ... PETITIONERS ~ . , ' SMT. K:C.' LASHA, e ._wu/O__ SRI*H.C. JAYASHANKARA, "~,_AGED~~_.ABOUT 28 YEARS, _ I»I,4xNUMANAI«I,ALLI VILLAGE. KR. NAGAR TALUK, 'I * IVFYSORE DISTRICT.
RESPONDENT la/E AGA.,) 13 {By SR1 M.S. BI-IAGWAT AND SRI D. PAVANESH, ADVS.,) WP NO. 23450 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
1. THE SELECTION AUTHORITY AND EX-OFFICIO JOINT DIREC'I'_€»).R_.__ MYSORE DIVISION. I ' MYSORE.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSION_13'R= CI-IAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR
3. THE SECRETARY, _ _ ._ AA PRIMARY AND SECONDARYR-EDUCKHGN DEPARTMEN'I'.,A. STATE OF KARNATA'it<A,.
M.S. BUILDINCEK .0 g
4. THE ;rAHs1LDAR,fjV' "
CHAMARAJANAGART DISTRICT... "
... PETITIONERS MRSM. Is:£RAr§:RAJ, _ Rs/0 B.~.MAHADEVAPPA, 'AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
- _ QR, MQOKAI-IALLI.
' . GULIPURA POST.
" CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK. ' CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT u/ 14 (By SR1 M.S. BHAGWAT AND SR1 D. PAVANESH, ADVS..] WP NO. 23451 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
THE DISTRICT RECRUITMENT AUTHORITY, YADGIR TALUK AND TI-IE DEPUTY DIRECTOR : ' OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS. YADGIR.
= "PE91Ij;IA0NF.R A (SMT. SI-IEELA KRISHNA, AGA.',IQ'--I. AND:
MS. VIJAYALAKSHMI GOUDAR,---.
D/O M.G.G0UDAR, AGE: 26 YEARS,-_ _, : W/O PAIzASHt.IRAg»IKANGAL, _ "
R/AT TURADAG1 -- 5:537' 2'c»~:>._, TALUK:V.HUNG.UND",-~., ' ' - DISTRICT: IBAGALKQT "
" " 2 ...RESPONDENT _ (By M~.S. BHACWAT AND SR1 D. PAVANESH, ADVS.,) DNo.:23:45'2..C'CI? 2010:
BETWE, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA I REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO ~ I GOVERNMENT.
VDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
15
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRCT, HASSAN.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS.
SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA.
[SMT. SHEELA KRISHNA, A(}A.,] AND: I I MS. ROOPA, --
D/O LATE KR. PUTTASWAMY, _
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, " I
MAKAVALLIVILLAGE, I -
*4
HOLENARASIPURA
HASSAN DIC+3TRlC§TZ"'~--. I A . ~ A RESPONDENT [By SR1 1V£.S.«. B1-}ZAGWA'1'..AN.D-' SR1 D. PAVANESH, ADVS.,} - 4 I ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 '*.__& V1227' __CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET'AS.iDE"'~_r:R:§"ORDER DATED 25.02.2010 PASSED BY D. I ill/,, 16 THE KARNATAKA ADMISNISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION Nos. 5351-54/O9 C/W APPLICATION Nos. 136/2010, 2531/09, 2366/09, 1688/09, 2370/09, 22-25/10, 6203/05, 4212/08, 1913/08, 3078/37, 319/09, 2533/08 AND 4818/O8 VIDE ANNEX}Atj'~.t.BY ALLOWING THESE W.Ps.
THESE PE"1'I"1"IONS COMING ON 1mR'jf~.\Pr$:i;Y_.N<:};' mls DAY, N KUMAR J., DELlVERE-D"'TI-IE FQL_1.,Qw:_N(;:..i'. JUDGMENr"
The State has preleifred ehallenging the order passed by the Ad*mih1'sti9'atiVe Tribunal, Bangalore [for has held that exclusion "Children, nephews and niece the the 'member of the family' of Project Rule (gm) of the Karnataka Civi1.§:$er1dces (Geheral Recruitmerlt} (57th Amendment) Rule. 'S790 Amendment Rule, 2000) is arbitrary, uhreasonable and that the said rule requires amAendrner1't;' A. 2".~'I'he daughter--ir1--IaW of Sri Doddegowda, grand son Rangegowda, daughter--in~«1aw of Rangegowda applied 17 for the post of primary teacher under 'YN' category pursuant to the notification issued by the fourth respondent--DDPl. Their applications were rejected on the ground that they are not the members of the family of the Project--'jV'Di_s*pplaced Person. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred before the Tribunal challenging the .Va1iditV3rfvVofa..Ru.le.'_9[2}'_of ' . 57th Amendment Rule, 2000 con't.ending and violative of Article 14 _the Constitution _"ind..i:i. The' Tribunal has upheld their V_c:o:11tention...'Aggrieyed by the same, State is before _CAo'4._1prt{._' g 0' respect of Services (General Recruitment) [57"1 42000. Explanation 2 of Rule 9 Rules reads asunder:
V "{2} 'members of the family' in . relation to a project displaced person A 'V'Vls:'i__rneans the family of the project displaced 0 person consisting of such person and his or her spouse, sons, unmarried daughters, brothers and sisters residing with him and dependent on himfor their livelihood," 18
Therefore, though daughter--in--1aws and grand children are residing as members of the family, as they werev.onotVVir1e'iiided in the definition of 'members of the famiiy"t.__the'y»are entitled to appointment under'""'YN'A_"..eate§o1jr_Vv{Yojan.a Nirashritaru -- Project Displaced In_»f.ac~t, order of the Tribunal ho1di';1g:"'~~,+_,%1»/iat the as offending Article 14 of the it flsuggeséted to the Government to cariy out;'t'hes..red'uisitefamendment. It is in pursuance of t1jiVe._sugg'estion, th'e:'Vi'€3o\iv'er'.nment has issued a notification«-d'ated:'3'O~3{Q91Qamending the said explanation- 2 whichtreads:'a§«1.;;;;;/ideri' it ' Rule 9:" In the Kdmataka 4' Ciottv._Servi¢e's..fdeneral Recruitment} Rules,
-.]9'7'.7,V in in sub rule (IAAJ under the expt'cnqtio:1 in clause (ii) for the words _ ""'brothers and sisters the words "brothers, i " grand son, unmarried grand . ' f_ddughter, daughters in-law, widowed .' daughter and widowed grand daughter' shall be inserted." L l__ 9 With the said amendment, grand son, unmarried grand daughter, daughter~in~law, widowed daughter, granddaughter are included in the definition of the fatnily.
4. Now the short question for our whether those persons who are... now _«'inc'l'ugr'ivedl" t-hell' definition by way of amendment are e1j'titledfi»tr_o"th'e the scheme from the date of 'am.endrri'e:nt or f1"orn.:.theyVoriginalV . i' order dated 23-» I 1~2000'?
5. The last word,used'V.in--.th.e of Rule 9 at the end assu_rr1e:;1isirr1por"tar.;ce inf decidi'r'ig this question. The wordsiused areTshall_be._in'serted'. The question is, when by way of an'1endmel'1t certain words are inserted in the original secti{on,eA.what" isilthei effect? Whether it would operate ret_rospe-ctivyelyv or prospectively? 6f in "this regard, it is also useful to keep in mind the J'law_.whi'Cl.1 is well settled over a period. The question Whether 'allstatute operates prospectively or retrospectively is one of ....the legislative intent. if the terms of a statute are clear and ll, 20 unambiguous and it is manifest that the Legislature intended the Act to operate retrospectively, ,,.Viit_!l":.r_1ust unquestionably be so construed. If, however, of statute do not of themselves make the 'certaino1'.. clear, the statute will be presumed While considering the question of ope:;atioVn" ; of the statute, the nature of niustlllfirst be C0nSid€1'€d- All rights or vested rights generally?' There is a presumption,» if they affect vested rights legislative intent is _ clear a statute is not to have retrospective applicable where it is doubtful fr0m_t_he lai1f--{u&8§'-- ufsvedfvvhether or not it was intended to s:'u,ch..,_operatioi"1;"V Where language of a statute plainly ,it'a_:retV1':isp.ective operation, the rule has no application. itigsllobviouslylcompetent, for the Legislature, if it pleases, in its to make the provisions of an Act of Parliament A » I' " retrospective.
21
7. Where a section of a statute is amended. the original ceases to exist and the new section supversecdes it and becomes a part of the law just as if the had, always been there. The amendment is"'retr:osp'eVct'ive ,_iri operation. Curative statutes are:=.Aobviou?sly',retroalc'tive,& hence entitled, as a generalr»rar,_le, to"retrospe.ct"i«;[§;.V:
Being retroactive in their verylvflrziature. riot usually be given any prospective«. effect: to a liberal construction, any in favour of retrospective opgfa1--1ptn'. there are even limitations. retroactive operation of curative violate provisions of the they interfere with or destroy vested rights p_lVof_..third'parties. A retrospective statute "V.._Contempla'Les thé'p'ast' and gives to a previous transaction r.diffeI'erit:VlegaI effect from that which it had under the law lwhenpliboecurred or transpired. A retrospective law is one which reaches back to and gives to a prior transaction A {"some«_.different legal effect from that which it had under the l law when it took place. If an Act provides that as at a past 22 date the law shall be taken to have been that which___is not, that Act is deemed to be retrospective.
8. The Constitution Bench ofwthe SLa';jre'I'h:ev ,Coa1"t flag» 1 _ an occasion to consider this aspeet' in;:"th_e' V PARULEKAR & OTHERS' -9; premiere. * THANA, BOMBAY & OTHERS 21 952- so 324} ) wherein it is held as under: I h it it wfhew Constrtiction an rtcr, has been arrafiglzéd by technical
-1 zlivlesgiand"toes_rnz.ist'-first clear regarding 1 construction. The rule hhhh H " subseauent Act amends an ' 4' a way as to incorporate itseyf' of itself, into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and 'construed (except where that would _ =1e"c.:1__ to a repugnancy, inconsistency or ' ahsardity) as if the altered words had been ~ ivrttten into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all. This is the rule in England: it is the law in America; and it is 23 the law which the Privy Council applied to India," T _
9. Therefore, in order to find out whetherfa--men"ded provision is retrospective or prospective, wh_a'E---- we"'h.:a\r¢'."-'tot'v, look at is the legislative intent. in the express words used are 'shall be"':.insferted"which shall be inserted in the olriginal section'.l'f.:vl' thisd amendment Act came into fo_r__e§- the rule was amended i.e., 'amended comes into effect from the date of."l2l3--1 1-2000. The legislative There is no scope':.for: ' All that we have to do is to give effect to'the of amended provision. The adriitilorial words introduced into the provision are to be read as if the said words had been mitten in the .ofiginalf;3g=.ctj.{;j1'i.. before amendment, with pen and ink, from day the said law was made. Therefore, the contention that it" is prospective and not retrospective and therefore, l"'._resp:ondents herein are not entitled to the benefit of such. 0 " -"provision has no substance. In fact, this amendment was 24 necessitated after the Tribunal struck down the provision as unconstitutional and upheld the claim of the respondents, and suggested an amendment. Therefore, in the f:acts_and circumstances of the case, it is clear that said'«am__end,ed provision is retrospective in operation and the _a1neii.d:n_ent'is..eV carried out in terms of the order passed bjy"'the'ATribun.eaI respondents should have the benefit of arnendedfl provision.
10. In that wewfif the do not find any merit in these writ petitions} AccorcliV119i:y; 'these petitions are dismissed. f'\fo. costs: ' sd/§___ Iudga Sé/it Iudq