9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the following issues: 1. Legislative power to declare and alter laws. 2. Validity of retrospective effect in legislation. 3. Impact of judicial decisions on legislative actions. 4. Alteration of service conditions with retrospective effect. 5. Validity of the Haryana Act XX of 1995 in altering seniority rules. Issue 1 - Legislative Power to Declare and Alter Laws: The judgment discusses the distinction between judicial and legislative powers, citing cases like Basanta Chandra Vs. Emperor and Ogden vs. Black Ledge. It emphasizes that the judiciary's role is to interpret existing law, while the legislature has the authority to change or validate laws, as seen in cases like M/S Anwar Khan Mahboob Co. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Rai Ramkrishna vs. State of Bihar. Issue 2 - Validity of Retrospective Effect in Legislation: The judgment clarifies that while legislatures can enact laws with retrospective effect, they cannot infringe fundamental rights or create retrospective penal laws. It highlights the case of Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Broach Borough Municipality to illustrate the legislature's power to render court judgments ineffective by changing the legal basis. The importance of removing the cause of invalidity in validating legislation is also emphasized, as seen in Bhubaneshwar Singh vs. Union of India. Issue 3 - Impact of Judicial Decisions on Legislative Actions: The judgment explains that when a court interprets statutory provisions and issues directions based on that interpretation, the legislature may not need to pass a validating act. Instead, it can create a new law with retrospective effect to fundamentally alter the basis of the court's judgment, as allowed under Articles 245, 246, and 248. The case of Meerut Development Authority vs. Satbir Singh is referenced to support this point. Issue 4 - Alteration of Service Conditions with Retrospective Effect: Regarding service conditions, the judgment states that they can be changed retroactively either through service rules under Article 309 or by legislative action. It is noted that in the case at hand, the seniority rules were replaced by the Haryana Act XX of 1995 with retrospective effect to rectify inequities. Issue 5 - Validity of the Haryana Act XX of 1995 in Altering Seniority Rules: The judgment concludes that the Haryana Act XX of 1995, which altered seniority rules retrospectively, is valid. It agrees with the decision to set aside judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and directs the state government to reevaluate seniority based on the new law. The judgment disposes of civil appeals, writ petitions, and transferred cases accordingly, with no costs imposed.
|
