Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Ors vs V.D. Dubey (D) By Lr on 8 December, 2009
Generally any circular or directive cannot have a retrospective effect
particularly in service matters since it will upset the settled position leading to
complications in regard to seniority, promotions etc and hence should not be
resorted. If orders are issued based on changes in policy, which does happen,
applying norms laid in the new policy with retrospective effect will lead to the
entire administration going hay wire. Therefore, it is well laid law that any
statute, amendment, rule, order will have prospective effect and not retrospective
effect unless it is otherwise specified with sound reasoning and the necessity to
do so. Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with a railway matter has
observed in Union of India v. V.D. Dubey,(2010) 2 SCC 225, as under,
declaring that an Amendment will have only prospective effect.
The Secretary (Estt)Railway Board & ... vs Shri D. Francis Paul Etc on 15 July, 1996
13. The scope of the proviso to Rule 2423-A of Railway
Establishment Manual, Vol. II came up for consideration before
this Court in Railway Board v. D. Francis Paul (1996) 10 SCC
134 and this Court held that amendment cannot have
retrospective effect in respect of a person already in service but
would be prospective; it would be applicable only to those
candidates appointed after the date of the amendment
introducing the proviso. Therefore the provision which states that
8 OAs 516/14 & batch
the concession be admissible only if the recruitment rule provides
so, would operate only prospectively.
Chairman, Railway Board And Ors vs C.R. Rangadhamaiah And Ors. Etc. Etc on 25 July, 1997
Another observation pertinent to the issue on hand of the Honourable
Supreme Court is in regard to retrospective amendment of statutory rules
adversely affecting pension in Chairman, Railway Board and ors vs C.R.
Rangadhamaiah and ors in CA 4174-82 of 1995 where in it was held that:
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India (1979) 3 SCC 489 again this Court observed that a discriminatory
9 OAs 516/14 & batch
action of the Government is liable to be struck down, unless it can be
shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was
based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational,
unreasonable or discriminatory.
Lt. Col. D. Ghosh (Retd.) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 July, 2007
Interestingly the Secunderabad division has implemented the principle of
placing employees with higher scale of pay Rs.5500-9000 as senior to those
drawing Rs.5000-8000 but surprisingly other divisions not doing so, though they
also come under the same Railway Ministry, smacks of discriminative action.
The reason, they do the same work and being similarly placed the benefits
extended to one group has to naturally flow to the others who are on the same
plane. Honourble Supreme Court has observed so in G.C.Ghosh vs Union of
India reported in 1992 (19) ATC 94 as under:
Union Of India & Ors vs V.K.Krishnan & Ors on 17 February, 2015
In fact Honourable Supreme Court has
laid down that there shall be separate seniority list for each grade in Union of
India and others vs V.K. Krishnan and others in CA 2532 of 2010 as under:
Maharashtra State Road Tpt. ... vs Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors on 20 November, 2001
In Maharashtra SRTC Vs. Rajendra Bhimrao
Mandve, this Court observed that, "the rules of the game,
meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be
altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after
the process of selection has commenced". In this case the
position is much more serious. Here, not only the rules of
the game were changed, but they were changed after the
game had been played and the results of the game were
being awaited. That is unacceptable and impermissible."
Further, the Honourable Ernakulam bench of this Tribunal, Honourable
High Court of Uttarakhand and Honourable Supreme Court in OA 180/2015 dt
15.2.2016, W.P (5/B) No. 582/2016 dt 10.3.2017 and in AIR 1983 SC 852
respectively have held that the date of notification has to be taken into account
while considering the case of the applicants and the consequences of delay on the
part of the respondents cannot be attributed to the applicants and could not put
them to disadvantage. The applicants in the present OA had a different seniority
as per the notification prior to 2012 and changing it by the executive order vide
circular 107/2012 is irregular. The Hyderabad bench in OA 569/2013 dt
30.9.2015 has held that the date of vacancy has to be taken in fixing he seniority
and merger of the post has no relevancy.
Union Of India & Anr vs S.K. Goel & Ors on 12 February, 2007
13 OAs 516/14 & batch
for good and sound administration. If the settled seniority at the
instance of one's junior in service is unsettled, it may generate
bitterness, resentment, hostility among the Government servants and
the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. Such a situation
may drive the parties to approach the administration for resolution
of that acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume lot
of time and energy. The decision either way may drive the parties to
litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both
private and Government, driving the parties to acute penury. It is
well known that salary they earn, may not match the litigation
expenses and professional fees and may at time drive the parties to
other sources of money making including corruption. Public money
is also being spent by the Government to defend their otherwise
untenable stand. Further it also consumes lot of judicial time from
the lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among
the parties at the cost of sound administration affecting public
interest. Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once
settled, shall not be unsettled but the men in power often violate that
ratio for extraneous reasons, which, at time calls for departmental
action. Legal principles have been reiterated by this Court in Union
of India and anr vs S.K Goel and ors (2007) 14 SCC 641, T.R
Kapoor v State of Haryana (1989) 4 SCC 71, Bimlesh Tanwar V
State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604."