Retrospective service-rule amendments cannot take away accrued seniority and pension benefits already earned under the existing regime.

Retrospective amendment of emergency concession rules cannot lawfully withdraw seniority, increments or pension-related service benefits already accrued to ex-emergency commissioned officers. Although rule-making under Article 309 may operate retrospectively, that power is limited by constitutional guarantees and cannot be used to destroy vested service rights or validate an arbitrary deprivation of benefits earned under the existing regime. The text emphasises that a law cannot artificially recreate a past state of affairs to extinguish present rights. On that basis, the retrospective amendments are stated to be invalid insofar as they prejudiced those who had already earned the military service concession, and seniority was to be reconsidered by counting such service.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State could amend the emergency concession rules retrospectively so as to withdraw seniority and other service benefits already accrued to ex-emergency commissioned officers, and whether such retrospective amendment was constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The petitioners had entered service on the basis of the existing concession rules and the assurances embodied in the service regime, under which military service was to count for increments, seniority and pension. The impugned amendments, made under Article 309 of the Constitution, were given retrospective effect and were designed to deny the benefit of military service for seniority and to restrict the class of persons entitled to the concession. A rule-making power under Article 309 may be exercised prospectively or retrospectively, but it cannot be used to destroy accrued constitutional and service rights or to validate an arbitrary deprivation of benefits already earned. The principle governing retrospectivity is that a law may operate backward only so far as it remains consistent with constitutional guarantees; present rights cannot be extinguished by artificially recreating a past state of affairs. The retrospective amendments, in their effect on those who had already acquired the benefit of military service, offended constitutional protections and could not stand.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendments were invalid to the extent they prejudicially affected persons who had already acquired the benefit of military service, and the seniority list had to be reconsidered by counting such service.

---