Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors vs Sri D. Janardhana Rao And Another on 23 September, 1976 cites

Sardari Lal vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 January, 1971

The view taken by the High Court that the power con- ferred by rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordi- nate Services Rules is exercisable by the Governor personal- ly is based on the Judgment of this Court in Sardari Lal v. Union of India & ors. (1) But Sardari .Lal's case has been overruled by the later decision of this Court in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (2) and counsel for the respond- ents rightly conceded that the impugned order cannot be assailed on this ground after Shamsher Singh's case. The real question that requires to be decided in this appeal is whether rule 47 permits relaxation of any rule with retrospective effect. Before proceeding to consider this aspect, it is necessary to dispose of one small point raised on behalf of the appellants that the impugned order was not really retrospective but prospective in operation because it was only from the date of the order that the inclusion of the names of the said 63 employees in the panels for the different years was regularised. The order made on June 30, 1971 relaxed rule 4(a) of the Special Rules in the case of these employees to validate the panels for the years 1965, 1966, 1968 and 1969. The impugned order thus regularized the inclusion of the names in the panels which was done long before the order was made. The order is therefore clearly retroactive and not prospective in opera- tion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 21 - A N Grover - Full Document

Shamsher Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 23 August, 1974

The view taken by the High Court that the power con- ferred by rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordi- nate Services Rules is exercisable by the Governor personal- ly is based on the Judgment of this Court in Sardari Lal v. Union of India & ors. (1) But Sardari .Lal's case has been overruled by the later decision of this Court in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (2) and counsel for the respond- ents rightly conceded that the impugned order cannot be assailed on this ground after Shamsher Singh's case. The real question that requires to be decided in this appeal is whether rule 47 permits relaxation of any rule with retrospective effect. Before proceeding to consider this aspect, it is necessary to dispose of one small point raised on behalf of the appellants that the impugned order was not really retrospective but prospective in operation because it was only from the date of the order that the inclusion of the names of the said 63 employees in the panels for the different years was regularised. The order made on June 30, 1971 relaxed rule 4(a) of the Special Rules in the case of these employees to validate the panels for the years 1965, 1966, 1968 and 1969. The impugned order thus regularized the inclusion of the names in the panels which was done long before the order was made. The order is therefore clearly retroactive and not prospective in opera- tion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 110 - Cited by 317 - A N Ray - Full Document

R. P. Khanna & Ors vs S.A.F. Abbas & Ors. Etc on 22 February, 1972

814. 707 Rules gives power to the Governor to relax the rigour of the general rules in such manner as may appear to him to be just and equitable. To show that rule 47 giving such wide power to the Governor is not unique of its kind, counsel for the appellants referred to similar provisions in several other Service Rules like, rule 13 of the Secretary of State's Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1938, rule 10 of the Indian Administrative ServiCe (Pay) Rules. 1954, rule 15 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954, rule 10 of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954, and rule 10(b), proviso, of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1967. Clearly, the power under rule 47 is to be exercised in the interest of justice and equity. It is not difficult to see that the occasions for :acting under rule 47 may well arise after the attention of the Government is drawn to a case where there has been a failure of justice. In such cases justice can be done only by exercising the power under rule 47 with retro- spective effect, otherwise the object and purpose of the rule will be largely frustrated. The view we take finds support from the decision of this Court in R.P. Khanna & Ors. v. S.A.F. Abbas & Ors. C) In that case the Court was dealing with rule 3(3)(b) of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 which lays down that the year of allotment of an officer who was ap- pointed to the Service by promotion shall be the year of allotment of the junior-most among the officers who entered the service by direct recruitment who officiated continuous- ly in a senior post from a date earlier than the date of commencement of such officiation by the former. The second proviso to the rule states that a promotee shall be deemed to have officiated continuously in a senior post prior to the date of inclusion of his name in the select list pre- pared in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regula- tions, if the period of such officiation prior to that date was approved by the Central Government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. Overruling a conten- tion raised on behalf of the direct recruits that it was not open to the State to make a retrospective declaration with regard to posts being made equivalent to senior posts, this Court observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 25 - A N Ray - Full Document
1