1975 (3) TMI 148 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Termination of services of the appellant in the Civil Aviation Department of the Government of India.
2. Interpretation of the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965.
3. Validity and retrospective effect of the rule amendment.
4. Argument regarding the need for a validating provision in the amended rule.
5. Dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court and the appellant's appeal.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant was appointed as an Airport Ticket Clerk in the Civil Aviation Department of the Government of India but had his services terminated on 15.6.1971. The termination was immediate, with a directive for payment in lieu of notice. The appellant's appeal and representations were unsuccessful, leading to a writ petition. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court based on a certificate granted due to a relevant precedent.

2. The proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 was amended retrospectively from 1st May 1965. The amendment affected the entitlement of the appellant to claim pay and allowances upon immediate termination. The amendment clarified that the appellant was only entitled to claim specific sums, rendering a previous court decision inapplicable.

3. The validity and retrospective effect of the rule amendment were upheld, emphasizing that rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are legislative and can be given retrospective effect. Consequently, the decisions of the Delhi High Court were deemed correct, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

4. An argument was raised regarding the absence of a validating provision in the amended rule. The appellant contended that the Government's intention in making the amendment could not be valid without such a provision. However, the Court clarified that once a law is given retrospective effect, actions taken under it are deemed valid, obviating the need for a separate validating provision.

5. The appellant's counsel argued for a fresh consideration of the writ petition by the Delhi High Court, citing concerns beyond the immediate termination. However, the Court found no merit in the additional points raised, including allegations of mala fide termination and violation of Article 14. As the termination was not based on retrenchment, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.