Case: Raj Kumar Vs. Union Of India &amp; Ors

1. The appellant was appointed as Airport Ticket Clerk in the Civil Aviation Department of the Government of India on 14-8-1967. On 15-6-1971 his services were terminated forthwith and it was directed that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the date on which the order was served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him. But the pay and allowances were not paid to him at the same time as the service of the order of termination of his services. His appeal against the termination as well as representations having failed he filed a writ petition out of which this appeal arises. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petition in limine and this appeal has been filed in pursuance of a certificate granted by the High Court because of the decision of this Court in R. M. S. Cochin v. K. V. Gopinath, reported in (1972) 3 SCR 530  = (AIR 1972 SC 1487  = 1972 Lab IC 826), of which that Court was not aware when it dismissed the petitioners petition.

Reasoning:
The effect of this amendment is that on 1st May 1965 as also on 15-6-1971, the date on which the appellants services were terminated forthwith it was not obligatory to pay to him a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for the period of the notice at the rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of the services or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short. The Government servant concerned is only entitled to claim the sums hereinbefore mentioned. Its effect is that the decision of this Court in Gopinaths case (1972) 3 SCR 530  = (AIR 1972 SC 1487  = 1972 Lab IC 826) (supra) is no longer good law. There is no doubt that this rule is a valid rule because it is now well established that rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are legislative in character and therefore can be given effect to retrospectively. It follows that the decision of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appellants writ petition is correct and this appeal will have to be dismissedThis argument proceeds upon a miscomprehension of the above observation and the effect of a validating statute. Once a law is given retrospective effect as from a particular date all actions taken under the Act even before the amendment was made would be deemed to have been taken under the Act as amended and there could be really no question of having to validate any action already taken provided it is subsequent to the date from which the amendment is given retrospective effect. The question of the particular form of the validation would always depend on the circumstances of a case and no general for mula can be devised for all circumstances. It is enough to say that in the present case the action taken against the appellant was on a date subsequent to the date on which the amended rule takes effect and therefore that action being in accordance with the amended rule is legally a valid action and there is no need to have a validating provision in respect thereofWe see no substance in this contention. The action is said to be male fide because after, the appellants services were terminated certain other persons have been appointed. It is not alleged that those persons exercised the it influence and had the petitioners services terminated in order to provide them with posts. Naturally when a vacancy arises by the termination of services of an employee other persons would have to be appointed to take his place. This would not show any mala fides2. It was not brought to the notice of the High Court that the proviso toe (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules l965 had been amended with retrospective effect from 1st May, 1965. The rule as now amended reads:5. Termination of temporary service(1) (a) The services of temporary Government servant who is not int service shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant;(b) The period of such notice shall be one month :Provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of the services or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short of one monthThe effect of this amendment is that on 1st May 1965 as also on, the date on which the appellants services were terminated forthwith it was not obligatory to pay to him a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for the period of the notice at the rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of the services or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short. The Government servant concerned is only entitled to claim the sums hereinbefore mentioned. Its effect is that the decision of this Court in Gopinaths case (1972) 3 SCR 530  = (AIR 1972 SC 1487  = 1972 Lab IC 826) (supra) is no longer good law. There is no doubt that this rule is a valid rule because it is now well established that rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are legislative in character and therefore can be given effect to retrospectively. It follows that the decision of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appellants writ petition is correct and this appeal will have to be