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 Validates Retroactive Rule Amendment, Overturns High Court Decision</h1> <h3>STATE OF RAJASTHAN Versus MANGILAL PINDWAL</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 1976 amendment to Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, allowing for retroactive operation of the rule. ... - Issues Involved:Validity of the amendment introduced in Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.Judgment Summary:The appeal before the Supreme Court of India concerned the validity of an amendment introduced in Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which pertains to the compulsory retirement of a Government servant. The respondent, an Upper Division Clerk with the Government of Rajasthan, was compulsorily retired after completing 25 years of qualifying service. The issue arose when the amount paid to the respondent at the time of retirement was found to be short by Rs. 120. The High Court initially allowed the respondent's writ petition, citing non-compliance with the payment provisions. Subsequently, an amendment was made to Rule 244(2) on March 11, 1976, dispensing with the requirement of immediate payment at the time of retirement. The High Court, however, deemed this amendment invalid, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.The legal dispute revolved around the effect of the amendments made to Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, particularly the substitution of provisions through notifications in 1975 and the subsequent amendment in 1976. The High Court's decision was based on the principle that a repealed law cannot be amended, as per established legal interpretations. However, the Supreme Court held that the amendment made in 1976 was valid, as it effectively replaced the earlier provision that was in force from 1972 to 1975. The Court emphasized that a rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution can have retroactive operation, allowing for amendments to provisions that were in effect during a specific period.In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment declaring the 1976 amendment invalid. The decision ensured that the respondent's favorable outcome from the High Court remained undisturbed. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
