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>Retrospective amendments affecting ex-emergency commissioned officers' benefits deemed unconstitutional. Writ petitions allowed.</h1> <h3>EX-CAPT. KC. ARORA Versus STATE OF HARYANA</h3> The Supreme Court held that the retrospective amendments made by the Haryana Government in 1976 to the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) ... - Issues Involved:1. Retrospective Amendment of Rules2. Violation of Fundamental Rights3. Discrimination and Classification4. Legislative Powers and Vested RightsSummary:1. Retrospective Amendment of Rules:The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the Haryana Government could amend the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965, with retrospective effect to deprive ex-emergency commissioned officers of their accrued benefits. The Court held that the Parliament and State Legislature have plenary powers to legislate prospectively and retrospectively, but amendments affecting vested rights must be explicitly intended. The amendments made by the Haryana Government in 1976, which restricted the benefits of military service, were declared ultra vires as they took away accrued rights retrospectively.2. Violation of Fundamental Rights:The petitioners argued that the retrospective amendment violated Articles 14, 16, 19, 31, and 311 of the Constitution. The Court referenced the case of State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, emphasizing that accrued constitutional rights cannot be nullified by retrospective legislation. The Haryana Government's amendments were found to contravene fundamental rights by arbitrarily and unreasonably altering the conditions of service to the detriment of the petitioners.3. Discrimination and Classification:The Court examined whether the amendments introduced discriminatory practices. The High Court had previously upheld the amendments, stating that the classification based on educational qualifications was valid. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, citing Harbhajan Singh v. The State of Punjab and State of Mysore v. M.N. Krishna Murthy & Ors., and concluded that the retrospective amendments unjustly discriminated against ex-emergency commissioned officers by depriving them of their seniority and other benefits.4. Legislative Powers and Vested Rights:The Court reiterated that while the Governor has legislative powers under Article 309 of the Constitution, these powers cannot be used to retrospectively alter vested rights. The case of B.S. Vadera v. Union of India & Ors. was cited to support the argument that rules can be made with retrospective effect, but this does not extend to violating accrued rights. The Court held that the Haryana Government's amendments were invalid as they retrospectively deprived the petitioners of their legitimate entitlements.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions and appeals, quashing the High Court's judgment and declaring the impugned amendments to be ultra vires the Constitution. A writ of mandamus was issued, directing the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list considering the military service rendered by the petitioners and appellants. No order as to costs was made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
