TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 731
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service sent herewith, and returning to me all the enclosed copies of this letter and one copy of the Terms and Conditions of Service within thirty days of the date of this letter." Respondent accepted the said offer of appointment on 04.10.1983, stating : "I accept appointment on the terms set out in this letter and in the document headed "Terms and Conditions of Service for Academic Staff". I agree to carry out such duties as are assigned to me from time to time by the Vice Chancellor and the Dean of the School of Natural Sciences." Although, the respondent was not in employment of the University he purported to have filed an application for his reappointment in the post of a reader of the University on 05.10.1983, which was accepted on the same day. The very fact that the respondent was appointed on the same day, as on the date of filing of application, evidently no selection process was undergone therefor. He joined the services of the University on 05.10.1983. He applied for grant of extra-ordinary leave without pay for a period of two years, in view of his assignment with the Zambia University and the Executive Council of the University by a resolution d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Executive Council and/or the said letter was not acted upon, inter alia, on the premise that being not in tune with the extant regulations. The matter was referred to the State Government and by reason of a letter dated 26.05.1997 it conveyed its objections thereto. Respondent was apprised of the decision of the University that his request for increments during the period of extra-ordinary leave had not been acceded to by the University by a letter dated 15.04.1998. A writ petition came to be filed by the respondent, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 09.10.2001. However, on an intra-court appeal filed by the respondent, a Division Bench of the said High Court allowed the same by a judgment and order dated 29.11.2004. Appellant is, thus, before us. Mr. Nidesh Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that in term of the extant rules, the respondent was not entitled to annual increments during the period of leave. Respondent who appeared in person, on the other hand, would submit that the Executive Council having amended the relevant regulations with retrospective effect, he would b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot exceeding first four months at the rate at which an employee was drawing before proceeding on such leave provided he has not been in employment elsewhere during that period. The leave shall not ordinarily exceed one year at a time. Extraordinary leave shall not count for increment, except in the following cases :- a) The sanctioning authority is satisfied that such leave was taken by an employee on account of illness or for any other cause beyond his control provided that employee has no other kind of leave to his credit; b) Leave is granted for the purpose of higher studies and research; and c) Leave is granted to accept an invitation to a teaching post or fellowship or research-cum-teaching post or academic work of importance. Provided that the maximum total period for which such leave is granted shall not ordinarily exceed three years and in exceptional cases such leave may be extended so that the total period of leave, during the whole tenure of service of an employee does not exceed five years." Clauses (a) and (b) of Regulation 26 (ii)(c) are not attracted herein. Clause (c), according to the respondent, is attracted in the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a species of delegated legislation. A delegatee therefore can make rules only within the four corners thereof. 42. It is a fundamental rule of law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication. (See West v. Gwynne) 43. A retrospective effect to an amendment by way of a delegated legislation could be given, thus, only after coming into force of sub-section (2-A) of Section 64 of the Act and not prior thereto." See also MRF Ltd., Kottayam v. Asstt. Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax and Others [(2006) 8 SCC 702] In any event, the said purported resolution appears to be vague, inasmuch as it does not lay down as to from which date, the said amended regulation would come into effect. No retrospective operation could also be given having regard to the fact that thereby the rights of other employees of the University could not have been taken away. It is not in dispute that other teachers of the University have been given promotion. Respondent would be entitled to be promoted only in the event his break in his service is condoned an....