Retrospective effect and territorial jurisdiction: substituted pension regulation was not retrospective, and relief against Himachal Pradesh lay outside jurisdiction.

A substantive amendment does not operate retrospectively merely because it is described as a substitution; retrospective effect must be expressly stated or arise by necessary implication, and Regulation 8(3) was treated as a newly added pension provision rather than one effective from 1 November 1956. The appellant therefore could not claim pension on that retrospective basis. The Court also upheld the refusal of relief against the State of Himachal Pradesh because no part of the cause of action arose within the Punjab & Haryana High Court's territorial jurisdiction under Article 226. Relief, if any, had to be pursued before the competent Himachal Pradesh forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Regulation 8(3) of the Punjab State Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958, inserted by the 1972 amendment, could be treated as having retrospective effect from 1 November 1956 merely because the regulation was described as substituted. (ii) Whether the appellant could obtain relief against the State of Himachal Pradesh under section 6B of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Allowances & Pension of Members) Act, 1971 in the writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Issue (i): Whether Regulation 8(3) of the Punjab State Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958, inserted by the 1972 amendment, could be treated as having retrospective effect from 1 November 1956 merely because the regulation was described as substituted.

Analysis: The amendment introduced a new pensionary provision for members who were not in Government service at the date of appointment. The Court held that the mere use of the word "substituted" did not, by itself, make the new provision retrospective. Retrospectivity must be clearly expressed or arise by necessary implication, and no such indication was found in the amending order. The distinction between repeal, amendment, and substitution was explained, but the Court concluded that Regulation 8(3) was a newly added provision and not one deemed to have operated from the appointed day.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to claim pension under Regulation 8(3) with effect from 1 November 1956 or from the date of superannuation on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could obtain relief against the State of Himachal Pradesh under section 6B of the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Allowances & Pension of Members) Act, 1971 in the writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the Himachal Pradesh Act operated within the territory of that State and that no part of the cause of action against the State of Himachal Pradesh had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The refusal of the High Court to grant relief against Himachal Pradesh was therefore upheld. The Court also indicated that the appellant may pursue relief before the Himachal Pradesh authorities or, if necessary, before the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Conclusion: The High Court correctly declined relief against the State of Himachal Pradesh on territorial jurisdiction grounds.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's judgment failed. The claim for retrospective pension under the amended Public Service Commission regulations was rejected, and the refusal to entertain the claim against Himachal Pradesh was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive amendment does not operate retrospectively merely because the new provision is described as a substitution; retrospective effect must be expressly provided for or clearly implied, and territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on the cause of action arising within the court's limits.

---