1973 (12) TMI 102 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 32 under Section 21(2)(a) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957.
2. Validity of Regulation 14 due to non-laying before Parliament as required by Section 21(3).
3. Whether Regulation 14 exceeds the power conferred by Rule 32.
4. Impact of transfer on the petitioner's seniority and chances of promotion.
5. Claim for salary and duty status from specific dates.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rule 32 under Section 21(2)(a) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957:
The petitioner contended that Rule 32 is invalid because the Central Government sub-delegated its rule-making power to the Inspector-General, which is not authorized by Section 21 of the Act. The court examined the rule against sub-delegation of legislative power, citing various authorities and cases, including *Ganpati Singhji v. State of Ajmer* and *Hari Shankar Bagla v. M.P. State*. It concluded that Section 21 does not authorize sub-delegation, but Rule 32 does not constitute sub-delegation. Instead, it recognizes the implicit administrative powers vested in the Inspector-General by Section 8 of the Act, which allows the Inspector-General to frame regulations with the Central Government's approval. Therefore, Rule 32 is valid.

2. Validity of Regulation 14 due to non-laying before Parliament as required by Section 21(3):
The petitioner argued that Regulation 14 is invalid because it was not laid before Parliament. The court discussed various types of laying clauses and their implications, referencing *Hukam Chand v. Union of India* and *Jan Mohd v. State of Gujarat*. It determined that the laying requirement in Section 21(3) is directory, not mandatory. Therefore, the failure to lay Regulation 14 before Parliament does not affect its validity, and it remains effective from the date it was made.

3. Whether Regulation 14 exceeds the power conferred by Rule 32:
The petitioner claimed that Regulation 14, which deals with transfers, is not related to the "proper administration of the Force" and thus exceeds the powers conferred by Rule 32. The court referred to Section 15 of the Act, which implies that officers can be transferred anywhere within the Railways in India. It concluded that Regulation 14 does not create new powers but regulates existing powers for administrative purposes. Therefore, Regulation 14 is within the scope of Rule 32 and is valid.

4. Impact of transfer on the petitioner's seniority and chances of promotion:
The petitioner argued that his transfer would adversely affect his seniority and promotion prospects. The respondents assured that the petitioner would retain his seniority based on his length of service in the Western Railway and that his promotion chances would not be affected. The court held that even if the transfer affects seniority or promotion, it does not invalidate the transfer, as it is made under the authority of the Act and the regulations.

5. Claim for salary and duty status from specific dates:
The petitioner also sought a directive for payment of salary and duty status from specific dates. The court noted that the facts related to this claim were disputed and that such matters should be pursued through a civil suit rather than a writ petition. Therefore, the court did not address this issue in the current petition.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the arguments against the validity of Rule 32 and Regulation 14. The petitioner's concerns about seniority and promotion were noted but did not affect the legality of his transfer. The petitioner was advised to seek a civil suit for his salary claims. No costs were awarded, and the security deposit was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.