TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court invalidates Act provision, orders State compliance with High Court decision.</h1> <h3>SR. BHAGWAT Versus STATE OF MYSORE</h3> The Supreme Court declared Section 11 Sub-section (2) of the impugned Act unconstitutional and interpreted Sub-sections (2), (3), and (8) of Section 4 to ... - Issues Involved:1. Challenge to the Mysore Ordinance 1 of 1973 and the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973.2. Conflict between the provisions of the Act and the final order of the High Court.3. Legislative over-ruling of binding judicial decisions.4. Entitlement to consequential financial benefits from deemed promotions.Summary:1. Challenge to the Mysore Ordinance 1 of 1973 and the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973:The petitioners challenged the provisions of the Mysore Ordinance 1 of 1973 and the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973 (the impugned Act) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. They specifically targeted Sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (8) of Section 4 and Section 11 Sub-section (2) of the Act, asserting that these provisions conflicted with the final order of the High Court.2. Conflict between the provisions of the Act and the final order of the High Court:The petitioners were civil servants whose services were allotted to the new State of Mysore u/s 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. They contended that the impugned provisions sought to nullify the final seniority lists and the consequential benefits awarded by the High Court. The High Court had directed the State to consider the petitioners for promotions and grant all consequential financial benefits based on the final seniority list.3. Legislative over-ruling of binding judicial decisions:The Supreme Court observed that the impugned provisions, particularly Section 11 Sub-section (2), were ultra vires as they encroached upon the judicial field and attempted to over-rule binding judicial decisions. The Court cited precedents, including the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal case, emphasizing that a legislature cannot set aside individual judicial decisions inter partes and affect their rights and liabilities alone.4. Entitlement to consequential financial benefits from deemed promotions:The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to all consequential financial benefits from the deemed promotions as directed by the High Court. The Court struck down Section 11 Sub-section (2) as unconstitutional and read down the impugned portions of Sub-sections (2), (3), and (8) of Section 4, stating that these provisions should not apply where judicial directions to the contrary had become final.Conclusion:The Supreme Court struck down Section 11 Sub-section (2) as ultra vires and read down Sub-sections (2), (3), and (8) of Section 4 of the impugned Act. The respondent-State was directed to comply with the High Court's binding decision and grant all consequential financial benefits to the petitioners within eight weeks. The writ petition was allowed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
