https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172756 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. en-us Fri, 13 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:30:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172756 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172756