1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court dismisses appeal on Cabinet decision not meeting requirements of Government order. Compensation claim rejected.</h1> The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Cabinet decision was not enforceable as it did not meet the requirements of a Government order under ... - Issues Involved:1. Enforceability of Cabinet Decision2. Compensation u/s Article 310(2) of the Constitution3. Principle of Legitimate ExpectationSummary:1. Enforceability of Cabinet Decision:The appellant argued that the Cabinet's decision to pay compensation was enforceable, as three out of four decisions taken in the meeting were implemented, except for the compensation. The State contended that there was no Cabinet decision to pay compensation, and even if there was, it did not meet the requirements of a Government order u/s Article 166 of the Constitution. The Court held that the Constitution requires actions to be taken in the name of the Governor, and until this formality is observed, the action cannot be regarded as that of the State. Thus, the first plea of the appellant was rejected.2. Compensation u/s Article 310(2) of the Constitution:The appellant claimed compensation for premature termination of his tenure appointment, arguing that clause (2) of Article 310 implied an inbuilt requirement for compensation. The Court clarified that Article 310(2) is an enabling provision allowing the Governor to enter into contracts providing for compensation. In the absence of a specific contractual term regarding compensation, it cannot be implied. The Court emphasized that statutory interpretation should not involve adding or substituting words unless absolutely necessary. Therefore, the appellant's submission was deemed unacceptable.3. Principle of Legitimate Expectation:The appellant invoked the principle of legitimate expectation, arguing that he had a legitimate expectation to continue till the end of his tenure and thus deserved compensation. The Court explained that legitimate expectation arises when an administrative decision affects a person by depriving them of a benefit they were permitted to enjoy or were assured would not be withdrawn without a chance to comment. However, the Court found that the principle of legitimate expectation did not apply to the facts of this case, as there was no clear and unambiguous representation or assurance made to the appellant.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with the Court concluding that neither the Cabinet decision nor the principle of legitimate expectation supported the appellant's claim for compensation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
