2003 (3) TMI 710 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Enforceability of Cabinet Decision
2. Compensation u/s Article 310(2) of the Constitution
3. Principle of Legitimate Expectation

Summary:

1. Enforceability of Cabinet Decision:
The appellant argued that the Cabinet's decision to pay compensation was enforceable, as three out of four decisions taken in the meeting were implemented, except for the compensation. The State contended that there was no Cabinet decision to pay compensation, and even if there was, it did not meet the requirements of a Government order u/s Article 166 of the Constitution. The Court held that the Constitution requires actions to be taken in the name of the Governor, and until this formality is observed, the action cannot be regarded as that of the State. Thus, the first plea of the appellant was rejected.

2. Compensation u/s Article 310(2) of the Constitution:
The appellant claimed compensation for premature termination of his tenure appointment, arguing that clause (2) of Article 310 implied an inbuilt requirement for compensation. The Court clarified that Article 310(2) is an enabling provision allowing the Governor to enter into contracts providing for compensation. In the absence of a specific contractual term regarding compensation, it cannot be implied. The Court emphasized that statutory interpretation should not involve adding or substituting words unless absolutely necessary. Therefore, the appellant's submission was deemed unacceptable.

3. Principle of Legitimate Expectation:
The appellant invoked the principle of legitimate expectation, arguing that he had a legitimate expectation to continue till the end of his tenure and thus deserved compensation. The Court explained that legitimate expectation arises when an administrative decision affects a person by depriving them of a benefit they were permitted to enjoy or were assured would not be withdrawn without a chance to comment. However, the Court found that the principle of legitimate expectation did not apply to the facts of this case, as there was no clear and unambiguous representation or assurance made to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with the Court concluding that neither the Cabinet decision nor the principle of legitimate expectation supported the appellant's claim for compensation.