NANO KISHORE versus STATE OF PUNJAB

NANO KISHORE versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Rule 5.32 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, being identical to the struck Pepsu Regulation, contravenes Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Failure to challenge constitutionality in prior writ does not bar subsequent suit after Supreme Court has declared the rule unconstitutional. Principles of constructive res judicata are not applicable in this context.

Parties
Appellant: Nand Kishore; Respondent: State of Punjab
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 September 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed; High Court order set aside.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Retirement, Res Judicata, Constitutionality of Statutory Rules, Binding Nature of Supreme Court Precedent
Service Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Compulsory Retirement Res Judicata Constitutionality of Statutory Rules Binding Nature of Supreme Court Precedent

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nand Kishore

Appellant

State of Punjab

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to challenge the constitutionality of Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II in earlier writ proceedings bars a subsequent suit via res judicata after the Rule was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether Rule 5.32 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II contravenes Article 311(2) of the Constitution
  3. 3 Role of Supreme Court under Article 141

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 5.32 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, being identical to the struck Pepsu Regulation, contravenes Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Failure to challenge constitutionality in prior writ does not bar subsequent suit after Supreme Court has declared the rule unconstitutional. Principles of constructive res judicata are not applicable in this context.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; High Court order set aside.

Orders

  • Declaration that the appellant's compulsory retirement under Rule 5.32 was void and inoperative.
  • Appellant entitled to arrears as claimed in plaint and judgment of trial court.