2007 (3) TMI 731 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether no retrospective operation could be given having regard to the fact that thereby the rights of other employees of the University could not have been taken away? Whether termination of services of Respondent herein was appointed as a Reader in Physics in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak during the period of probation valid?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Termination of services during probation.
2. Reappointment without a selection process.
3. Grant of extra-ordinary leave without pay.
4. Request for increments during the period of extra-ordinary leave.
5. Retrospective amendment of regulations.
6. Comparison with another employee's case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Termination of Services During Probation
The respondent's services were terminated during the probation period by the University. This termination was challenged in a Civil Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was dismissed. The termination during probation is an undisputed fact.

2. Reappointment Without a Selection Process
The respondent applied for reappointment as a Reader in Physics on 05.10.1983, and the application was accepted on the same day without undergoing any selection process. This reappointment was treated as a fresh appointment rather than a continuation of previous service, as his services were terminated during probation and no reappointment was legally permissible.

3. Grant of Extra-Ordinary Leave Without Pay
The respondent was granted extra-ordinary leave without pay for two years to work at the University of Zambia. This leave was approved by the Executive Council of the University. Upon expiry of this period, the respondent rejoined the University in August 1985.

4. Request for Increments During the Period of Extra-Ordinary Leave
The respondent requested increments in his pay scale for the period he was on extra-ordinary leave. The University Grants Commission referred the matter to the State Government, which refused to grant approval, stating that such provisions were contrary to government rules and would create anomalies among employees. Despite this, the Vice-Chancellor of the University counted the extra-ordinary leave period towards annual increments, but this decision was not acted upon due to objections from the State Government.

5. Retrospective Amendment of Regulations
The Executive Council purportedly amended Regulation 26(ii)(c) with retrospective effect to allow increments for extra-ordinary leave taken for academic work. However, the Supreme Court held that the Act does not confer power on the Executive Council to make regulations with retrospective effect. The Court cited precedents to assert that in the absence of explicit legislative provision, a delegatee cannot make delegated legislation with retrospective effect.

6. Comparison with Another Employee's Case
The respondent compared his case with that of another employee, Satpal Taneja, who was granted increments under similar circumstances. The Court noted that even if the respondent and Taneja were similarly situated, Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality. The Court emphasized that the respondent's case did not fall under the relevant regulations and upheld the learned Single Judge's decision.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge, concluding that the respondent was not entitled to increments during the period of extra-ordinary leave. However, any amount already paid to the respondent by the University was not to be recovered.