TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amendment substituting Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 by notification dated 11 March 1976 was invalid on the ground that the earlier provision had already ceased to exist, and whether the substituted rule could operate retrospectively for the relevant past period.
Analysis: A substituted provision operates by repealing the earlier rule and bringing the new rule into force in its place. Repeal ordinarily does not affect transactions that were past and closed, but the earlier rule continues to govern the period during which it was operative. A rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India can have retroactive operation if the rule-making power so permits. The amendment in question did not seek to amend a non-existent provision in a legally impermissible sense; rather, it substituted the earlier rule for the relevant period and could validly operate retrospectively within that period.
Conclusion: The notification dated 11 March 1976 was not invalid merely because it substituted an earlier version of Rule 244(2); the High Court's contrary view was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory rule that has been substituted may be retrospectively replaced for the period during which the earlier rule was operative, and such substitution is not invalid on the ground that the earlier provision had ceased to exist, provided the rule-making power authorises retroactive operation.
TaxTMI 
