9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to pension under Regulation 8(3) of the Punjab State Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution regarding the claim for pension under the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Allowances & Pension of Members) Act, 1971. 3. Retrospective application of Regulation 8(3) of the Punjab State Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958. Summary: Issue 1: Entitlement to Pension under Regulation 8(3) of the Punjab State Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958 The appellant, a retired Member of the Punjab State Public Service Commission, claimed entitlement to a pension of Rs. 400 per mensem under Regulation 8(3) of the Punjab State Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958, effective from August 10, 1972. The High Court directed the State Government of Punjab to pay this pension from the date the regulation was introduced. However, the appellant's claim for pension from January 2, 1959, was disallowed as the regulation did not have retrospective effect. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that Regulation 8(3) being a remedial measure, must receive a beneficial construction but cannot be applied retrospectively without explicit provision. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution The appellant's claim for pension as a Member of the State Legislative Assembly under the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Allowances & Pension of Members) Act, 1971, was dismissed by the High Court on jurisdictional grounds. The High Court held that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, noting that the Himachal Pradesh Act is operative within the territories of that State, and hence no relief could be granted against the State of Himachal Pradesh. Issue 3: Retrospective Application of Regulation 8(3) The appellant contended that Regulation 8(3) should be deemed to have come into effect from November 1, 1956, the appointed day, and thus he should be entitled to pension from January 2, 1959. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that the newly-added Regulation 8(3) cannot bear a greater retroactive effect than intended. The Court emphasized that the mere use of the word "substitution" does not imply retrospective application unless explicitly stated. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. The appellant was directed to seek pension from the State of Himachal Pradesh afresh or file a petition in the Himachal Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate relief. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
