https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171947 Delegated legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless the parent statute expressly or by necessary implication authorises it, so an Executive Council amendment conferring increment benefits for extraordinary leave was invalid and could not override existing rights. The document also states that a university employee who accepted appointment elsewhere while not in service could not claim increments for that period or rely on a leave rule meant for leave granted on invitation to a teaching post. Article 14 could not be invoked to compel parity with another employee where that would perpetuate an unlawful benefit. The division bench decision was set aside, the single judge's order restored, and the university's refusal to grant the increment benefit upheld. en-us Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171947 Delegated legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless the parent statute expressly or by necessary implication authorises it, so an Executive Council amendment conferring increment benefits for extraordinary leave was invalid and could not override existing rights. The document also states that a university employee who accepted appointment elsewhere while not in service could not claim increments for that period or rely on a leave rule meant for leave granted on invitation to a teaching post. Article 14 could not be invoked to compel parity with another employee where that would perpetuate an unlawful benefit. The division bench decision was set aside, the single judge's order restored, and the university's refusal to grant the increment benefit upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171947