M/S. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 23 January, 2009
11.In light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel
appearing for the parties we have considered the entire
records. So far as the Office Memorandum dated
07.05.1985 is concerned, the same was issued by way of
relaxation of the condition of recruitment of casual workers.
But the fact remains that the respondents worked with the
appellants only for two years, i.e., from 1981 to 1983 and
admittedly on the date when the aforesaid office
memorandum was issued they were not working with the
appellant no. 2. There is nothing in the contents or in the
language of the said office memorandum which would
indicate that there was an intention to give a retrospective
10
effect to the contents of the said notification. Instead, the
language used in the aforesaid notification clearly shows
that the same was intended to be prospective in nature and
not retrospective. Even otherwise, it is a well-settled
principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a
statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. The
language employed in a statute is determinative factor of
the legislative intent. If the language of the enactment is
clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper for the
courts to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative
intent, not found in the statute. Reference in this regard
may be made to the recent decision of this Court in Ansal
Properties and Industries Limited v. State of Haryana
[(2009) 3 SCC 553].