Constitutionally protected service remuneration cannot be withdrawn by retrospective rule-making that diminishes preserved passage benefits.

Rule 3 of the All India Services (Overseas Pay, Passage and Leave Salary) Rules, 1957 could not abrogate passage benefits that had formed part of the protected service conditions and remuneration of former members of the Indian Civil Service under Article 314 of the Constitution. The expression "remuneration" was read broadly to include salary, allowances, privileges and facilities in kind, and that protection continued through the pre-Constitution and constitutional framework. Because the benefit had constitutional protection, the rule-making power under the All India Services Act, 1951 could not validly diminish it, particularly by retrospective operation. Rule 3 was therefore treated as ultra vires and ineffective against the preserved entitlement.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 3 of the All India Services (Overseas Pay, Passage and Leave Salary) Rules, 1957 could validly cancel passage benefits already protected as part of the service conditions and remuneration of former members of the Indian Civil Service under the constitutional guarantee in Article 314 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The passage benefit was originally treated as part of the remuneration of the service and, after the 1926 amendments, continued to operate as an allowance, privilege, or facility attached to the office. The guarantee of conditions of service as respects remuneration, leave, and pension was preserved through the Government of India Act, 1935, the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and then Article 314 of the Constitution of India. The expression "remuneration" was construed in a wide sense to include not only salary but also allowances and privileges provided in kind. Since the benefit had the character of remuneration and was constitutionally guaranteed, the rule-making power under the All India Services Act, 1951 could not be used to abrogate or diminish that protected entitlement, especially by a rule given retrospective effect.

Conclusion: Rule 3 was ultra vires and ineffective to cancel the protected passage benefits; the challenge to the denial of benefits failed.

---