STATE OF RATASTHAN versus MANGILAL PINDWAL

STATE OF RATASTHAN versus MANGILAL PINDWAL

The amendment by notification dated March 11, 1976, substituting Rule 244(2) with retrospective operation for a period when the earlier rule was operative, is valid. While the earlier provision ceased to exist after its repeal, it remained operative during the relevant period. Therefore, the legislature was competent to amend the provision retrospectively for that period, and the notification cannot be held invalid on the ground that it amended a non-existent provision.

Parties
Appellant: State of Rajasthan; Respondent: Mangilal Pindwal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 July 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court
Outcome
Appeal disposed of; part of the High Court's judgment declaring the amendment invalid set aside, but this does not affect the respondent, whose position remains undisturbed.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Retirement, Service Rules, Retrospective Amendment
Service Law Compulsory Retirement Service Rules Retrospective Amendment

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Rajasthan

Appellant

Mangilal Pindwal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of the amendment/substitution of Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 by notification dated March 11, 1976, with retrospective effect for the period August 19, 1972 to September 1, 1975, after the earlier provision had been repealed.

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment by notification dated March 11, 1976, substituting Rule 244(2) with retrospective operation for a period when the earlier rule was operative, is valid. While the earlier provision ceased to exist after its repeal, it remained operative during the relevant period. Therefore, the legislature was competent to amend the provision retrospectively for that period, and the notification cannot be held invalid on the ground that it amended a non-existent provision.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of; part of the High Court's judgment declaring the amendment invalid set aside, but this does not affect the respondent, whose position remains undisturbed.

Orders

  • The judgment of the High Court dated April 15, 1980, holding the amendment invalid, is set aside.
  • This decision does not affect the respondent; the High Court's decision in his favour remains undisturbed.