Vested right of absorption under a temporary acquisition scheme requires crystallised entitlement, not mere expectation.

Employees of erstwhile contract carriage operators were held not to have an automatic or vested right of absorption in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation under Clause 20(3) of the 1976 acquisition scheme. Absorption depended on statutory conditions being satisfied, including workman status, exclusive employment in connection with the acquired property, prescribed ratio, screening, equation of posts, seniority, and willingness to join. The saving clause preserved only acts done or action taken under the Ordinance, not a mere expectation of future absorption. The later Act, given retrospective effect from the notified date, validly substituted the proviso to Section 19(3) and altered the absorption ratio.

---

---

Issues: Whether the employees of erstwhile contract carriage operators acquired a vested right of absorption in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation under Clause 20(3) of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976, and whether such a right survived the repeal of the Ordinance and the substituted proviso in Section 19(3) of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976.

Analysis: The statutory scheme showed that absorption was not automatic on the notified date. The employee had to satisfy the conditions of being a workman, having been exclusively employed in connection with the acquired property, falling within the prescribed ratio, and being selected after the necessary screening, equation of posts, determination of seniority, and ascertainment of willingness to join the Corporation. The saving clause in Section 31(2)(i) preserved only things done or action taken under the Ordinance, not a mere hope or expectation of future absorption. The right claimed was therefore inchoate and not an accrued or vested right. The later Act, operating retrospectively from the notified date, substituted a new proviso and altered the absorption ratio, and the legislature was competent to do so.

Conclusion: The employees had no vested or automatic right to absorption under the repealed Ordinance, and the substituted statutory regime validly governed the matter.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere expectation of absorption under a temporary enactment does not amount to a vested or accrued right, and a retrospective re-enactment may validly replace the earlier scheme unless an actual right had already crystallised.

---