Retrospective delegated legislation and Article 14 parity cannot validate an unauthorised increment benefit for leave-related service abroad.

Delegated legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless the parent statute expressly or by necessary implication authorises it, so an Executive Council amendment conferring increment benefits for extraordinary leave was invalid and could not override existing rights. The document also states that a university employee who accepted appointment elsewhere while not in service could not claim increments for that period or rely on a leave rule meant for leave granted on invitation to a teaching post. Article 14 could not be invoked to compel parity with another employee where that would perpetuate an unlawful benefit. The division bench decision was set aside, the single judge's order restored, and the university's refusal to grant the increment benefit upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Executive Council could validly amend the leave regulations with retrospective effect so as to confer increment benefits for extraordinary leave. (ii) Whether the respondent was entitled to increments during the period of leave spent in service with another university and to claim parity under Article 14.

Issue (i): Whether the Executive Council could validly amend the leave regulations with retrospective effect so as to confer increment benefits for extraordinary leave.

Analysis: The regulation-making power under the governing statute did not authorise the delegated authority to make the amendment retrospective. A subordinate rule or regulation can operate retrospectively only if the parent enactment expressly or by necessary implication permits it. The purported resolution was also vague as to its commencement and could not override existing rights of other employees.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendment was invalid and could not be relied upon by the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent was entitled to increments during the period of leave spent in service with another university and to claim parity under Article 14.

Analysis: The respondent was not in service when he sought and accepted the foreign university appointment, and the subsequent appointment by the university was treated as a fresh appointment. The original leave rule covered leave granted on invitation to a teaching post, which did not fit the facts. Even the amended language could not assist because the respondent's application was not one sent through the university while he was in service. Article 14 could not be invoked to compel equality with another employee if that would perpetuate an illegality.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to the increment benefit or parity-based relief.

Final Conclusion: The division bench decision was set aside, the single judge's order was restored, and the university's refusal to grant the claimed increment benefit was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Delegated legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless the parent statute authorises it, and equality under Article 14 cannot be used to sustain an illegal or unauthorised benefit.

---