Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.25 seconds)The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
The All India Services Act, 1951
Section 5 in The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
R.P. Kapur vs Union Of India And Anr on 19 November, 1963
It is not only never done because it would be an unjustifiable expenditure of foreign exchange but would also be regarded as humiliating to the self-respect of a national Government. Thirdly, under C.S.R. 983 (a) payment of pension in sterling can be taken only "at the Home Treasury" implying thereby that the payment is made by the Government which had appointed the payees so that both for the payer and the payee the Home Treasury was in the United Kingdom. If possible, C.S.R. 983(a) should certainly be read mutates mutants. For instance, at page 442 of the Supreme Court decision in R.P. Kapur v. Union of India(5) referred to above, Wanchoo J, suggested that the Government of India should be substituted in place of the Secretary of State in the changed circumstances. If C.S.R.983(a) could be made applicable to the postindependent India by this method, it would still continue to be operative. But if we are to do so, we will have to substitute the treasury of the State Government concerned in place of the British Treasury. No State Government in India possesses any foreign exchange which is a central subject. It cannot, therefore, pay any pension in sterling in the United Kingdom. It was suggested by Shri I.M. Lal that such payment could be made to him through the High Commissioner for India in London. But no State Government in India has any control over the High Commissioner and the authority liable to pay pension is the concerned State Government and not the Government of India. Fourthly, the whole difference between the circumstances prior to Independence and after the Independence of India is the change of masters. While the British could pay pension in pounds to their employees as pounds was their currency, the Government of India can pay to its employees only in rupees which is the Indian currency. The members of the Indian Civil Service themselves realised this and, therefore, not a single instance has been brought to our notice of any of them claiming to be paid in pounds in the United Kingdom while he was residing in India after Independence. Fifthly, the devaluation of rupee which made these members of the former Indian Civil Service in India make this claim has really nothing to do with the amount of payment received by them. Devaluation has affected the value of rupee only vis-a-vis the pound for the purpose of foreign exchange. It has no relevance inside the country. Payment of pension after Independence is a domestic matter for the Government of India and its employees in India. It is a startling proposition to advance that any civil servant should be paid in foreign currency in a foreign country merely to get the benefit of devaluation of the home currency. The fluctuations in the rate of exchange are concerned only with the international trade and payments and not with domestic trade and payments. Sixthly, what would be regarded as "changed circumstances" making it impossible to continue a' particular right or condition of service would have to be decided according to the nature of the right and the context in which it is sought to be exercised. The object of the payment of pension is to assure a civil servant of remuneration for past services after retirement. Every civil servant in this respect is similarly situated. If no other civil servant is entitled to get his pension in a foreign currency to get the benefit of devaluation of the home currency, there is no reason why after Independence only the members of the Indian Civil Service should be able to do so. In State of Madras'. C.G. Menon the question was whether India could be regarded as a "British possession" within the meaning of Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 of U.K. so as to make that part of the said Act applicable to India. At page 287 the Supreme Court observed as follows: "IT is plain from the above provisions of the Act as well as from the Order in Council that British Possessions which were contiguous to one another and between whom there was frequent inter-communication were treated for purposes of the Fugitive Offenders Act as one integrated territory. ... The situation completely changed when India became a Sovereign Democratic Republic. After the achievement of Independence and the coming into force of the new Constitution by no stretch of imagination could India be describ- ed as a British possession."