Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.51 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Gujarat & Another vs Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni & Others on 27 January, 1983
In many of these decisions the expressions "vested rights" or "accrued
rights" have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which
had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in
the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc. of the
employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right
flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect
from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under
the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment
having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a
benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We are unable to hold that these
decisions are not in consonance with the decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon
(supra), B.S. Yadav (supra) and Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni & Ors., (supra).
B. S. Vadera vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 March, 1968
In many of these decisions the expressions "vested rights" or "accrued
rights" have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which
had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in
the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc. of the
employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right
flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect
from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under
the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment
having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a
benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We are unable to hold that these
decisions are not in consonance with the decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon
(supra), B.S. Yadav (supra) and Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni & Ors., (supra).
Roshan Lal Tandon vs Union Of India on 14 August, 1967
In many of these decisions the expressions "vested rights" or "accrued
rights" have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which
had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in
the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc. of the
employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right
flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect
from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under
the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment
having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a
benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We are unable to hold that these
decisions are not in consonance with the decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon
(supra), B.S. Yadav (supra) and Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni & Ors., (supra).
Salabuddin Mohamed Yunus vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 September, 1984
In Salabubbid Mohamed Yunus v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1985] 1 SCR 930,
the appellant was employed in the service of the former Indian State of
Hyderabad prior to coming into force of the Constitution of India. On
coming into force of the Constitution the appellant continued in the
service of that State till he retired from service on January 21, 1956. The
appellant claimed that he was entitled to be paid the salary of a High
Court judge from October 1, 1947 and also claimed that he was entitled to
receive pension of Rs. 1000 a month in the Government of India currency,
being the maximum pension admissible under the rules. The said claim of the
appellant was negatived by the Government. He filed a Writ Petition in the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition
relevant rule was amended by notification dated February 3, 1971 with
retrospective effect from October 1, 1954 and the expression "Rs. 1000 a
month" in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 299 was substituted by the
expression "Rs. 857.15 a month". This amendment was made in exercise of the
power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 read with Article 313 of the
Constitution.