TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1947
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.11,59,036/- by way of difference in pay. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashiwini Ray & Others, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 has held as under:- "26. From the aforesaid, it follows that though a "permanent employee" has right to receive pay in the graded pay scale, at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay scale with no increments. It is only the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments, etc. in the pay scale." Thus, it is clear that the respondent is only entitled for minimum pay scale without any increments. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) has no retrospective operation. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. It is well established principle of law that the principle of prospective overruling of judgment, does not apply except where, it is specifically mentioned. The Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Kumar and Another Vs. Madan Lal Aggarwal reported in (20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the date of the judgment of this Court cannot be accepted being erroneous." The Supreme Court in the case of M.A. Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2003) 7 SCC 517 has held as under:- "8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the High Court is erroneous as the law declared by this Court is presumed to be the law at all times. Normally, the decision of this Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of its stage of pendency because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the law from inception. The doctrine of prospective overruling which is a feature of American jurisprudence is an exception to the normal principle of law, was imported and applied for the first time in L.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab. In Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar the view was adopted. Prospective overruling is a part of the principles of constitutional canon of interpretation and can be resorted to by this Court while superseding the law declared by it earlier. It is a device innovated to avoid reopening of settled issues, to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, and to avoid u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As this Court for the first time has been called upon to apply the doctrine evolved in a different country under different circumstances, we would like to move warily in the beginning. We would lay down the following propositions: (1) The doctrine of prospective overruling can be invoked only in matters arising under our Constitution; (2) it can be applied only by the highest court of the country i.e. the Supreme Court as it has the constitutional jurisdiction to declare law binding on all the courts in India; (3) the scope of the retroactive operation of the law declared by the Supreme Court superseding its 'earlier decisions' is left to its discretion to be moulded in accordance with the justice of the cause or matter before it." 11. It is interesting to note that the doctrine has not remained confined to overruling of earlier judicial decision on the same issue as was understood in Golak Nath case. In several later decisions, this Court has invoked the doctrine in different situations including in cases where an issue has been examined and determined for the first time. For instance in India Cement Ltd. v. State of T.N., this Court not only held that the levy of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pective overruling of the previous decision in Rangachari ratio. The decision in Mandal case postponing the operation for five years from the date of the judgment is an instance of, and an extension to the principle of prospective overruling following the principle evolved in Golak Nath case." 14. Dealing with the nature of the power exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142, this Court held that the expression "complete justice" are words meant to meet myriad situations created by human ingenuity or because of the operation of statute or law declared under Articles 32, 136 or 141 of the Constitution. This Court observed: (Ashok Kumar Gupta case, SCC pp. 250-51, para 60) "60. ... The power under Article 142 is a constituent power transcendental to statutory prohibition. Before exercise of the power under Article 142(2), the Court would take that prohibition (sic provision) into consideration before taking steps under Article 142(2) and we find no limiting words to mould the relief or when this Court takes appropriate decision to mete out justice or to remove injustice. The phrase 'complete justice' engrafted in Article 142(1) is the word of width couched with ela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revious law." The Supreme Court in the case of B.A. Linga Reddy and others Vs. Karnataka State Transport Authority and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 515 has held as under:- 34. The view of the High Court in Ashrafulla has been reversed by this Court. The decision is of retrospective operation, as it has not been laid down that it would operate prospectively; more so, in the case of reversal of the judgment. This Court in P.V. George v. State of Kerala held that the law declared by a court will have a retrospective effect if not declared so specifically. Referring to Golak Nath v. State of Punjab it had also been observed that the power of prospective overruling is vested only in the Supreme Court and that too in constitutional matters. It was observed: (P.V. George case, SCC pp. 565 & 569, paras 19 & 29) "19. It may be true that when the doctrine of stare decisis is not adhered to, a change in the law may adversely affect the interest of the citizens. The doctrine of prospective overruling although is applied to overcome such a situation, but then it must be stated expressly. The power must be exercised in the clearest possible term. The decisions of this Court are clear point....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overruling, unless it is so indicated in the particular decision. It is not open to be held that the decision in a particular case will be prospective in its application by application of the doctrine of prospective overruling. The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequences of transactions forming part of the daily affairs. That being the position, the High Court was in error by holding that the judgment which operated on the date of selection was operative and not the review judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma case. All the more so when the subsequent judgment is by way of review of the first judgment in which case there are no judgments at all and the subsequent judgment rendered on review petitions is the one and only judgment rendered, effectively and for all purposes, the earlier decision having been erased by countenancing the review applications. The impugned judgments of the High Court are, therefore, set aside." The Supreme Court in the case of P.V. George Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2007) 3 SCC 557 has he....