Holding

The Karnataka Municipal Corporation Amendment Act, 1981 validly validates the appellant's appointment, making it legal and entitling him to pension and other benefits, and the High Court's repatriation order is illegal.

Summary

The appellant, an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department, was deputed to the Bangalore City Corporation and later absorbed under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Rules, 1977. The High Court struck down those rules and set aside his absorption. The State subsequently enacted the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Amendment Act, 1981, which validated the 1977 rules and all appointments made under them. After being promoted to Addl. Chief Engineer, the appellant was repatriated to his parent department shortly before retirement, prompting a challenge. The Supreme Court held that the 1981 Act validly validated his appointment, rendering the High Court's repatriation order illegal, and affirmed his entitlement to pension and other benefits from the corporation. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Amendment Act, 1981 validly validates appointments made under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Rules, 1977.
Whether the High Court order directing the appellant's repatriation is illegal in view of the validation provided by the 1981 Act.
Whether the appellant is entitled to pension and other consequential benefits from the corporation.

Legislation cited

Karnataka Municipal Corporation Amendment Act, 1981s. 8

Subjects

Service lawLegislative validationMunicipal corporationDeputationPension rightsAdministrative lawContempt petitionRepatriation

Judgment

)
'

A D. DASEGOWDA
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
T.R. DHANANJAYA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 19, 1993
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.)

Service Law :

C Kamataka Municipal Corporation Rules, 1977-¥alidated by Kar-
nataka Municipal Col]J(Jration Amendment Ac4 1981-Engineers-Appoint·
-
ment of-Deputation from PWD-AbsorlJed in Corporation-Promoted to
higher posts-Repatriation to PWD just before retirement-Validity of

The appellant who was an Assistant Engineer in Public Works
D Department was transferred on deputation to the Bangalore City Corpora·
tiou under the City Bangalore (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulation, 1971
which permitted 75% of vacancies in the cadre to be fdled .io by deputation . -~;
from P.W.D. •

E Io 1977, tile Karnataka Municipal Corporation Rules were framed
and the appellant was absorbed in the Corporation. On being challenged
lo a Writ Petition the High Court struck down the Rules and set aside the
absorption of the appellant in the Corporation. The Government issued
an ordinance removing the infirmity io the Rules. It was replaced by the
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Amendment Act, 1981. In course of
F time the appellant was promoted as Executive Engineer, Superintending
Engineer and Addi. Chief Engineer. The earlier Writ Petitioners ap·
proached the High Court by way of a Contempt Petition against the
non·implemeotal:ion of its order. Faced with this situation, the Govern·
meot repatriated the appellant to his parent department, just a few months
before his retirement.
G
The appellant approached the Administrative Tribunal, which dis·
missed bis application as infructuous in view of the fact that the matter
was pending before tile High Court and in any case the appellant would
get bis pension either from the State Government or the Corporation.
H Hence these appeals.
54
D.DASEGOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 55

Allowing the appeals, this Court, A
HELD: Under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Amendment
Act, 1981 the basis on which the Karnataka Municipal Rules, 1977 were
declared void was removed and appointments made or continued before the
commencement of the Amendment Act were declared to be valid and were
always be deemed to have been validly made for all purposes as if th.e said B
appointments had been_ made under the Principal Act as amended by the
Act. It is _not in dispute that the State Legislature is competent to make the
- Act. When the Act was made and it validated past acts done or proceedings
taken, it was valid Act and removed the defects declared by the Court. It
must be deemed and shall always be deemed that the appointment of the c
appellant as Addi. Chief Engineer is legal and valid. Udortunately, the Act
was not brought to the notice of the High Court when the direction to
repatriate the appellant was made by the High Court. But the failure to
bring to the notice of the court does not have the effect of nullifying the valid
action legislatively taken. Consequently the appellant must be deemed to
have been retired from service as Addi. Chief Engineer of the Corporation. D
The appellant is entitled to all the consequential benefits, all pensionary
benefits etc. from the Corporation. [SSH; 59-A-D]

Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr. v. Broadi Borough Municipality
& Ors., [1970] 1 SCR 388; Janapada Sabha, C/zhindwara, etc. v. Central E
Provinces Syndicate Ltd. & Anr., etc., [1970] 3 SCR 745 and Yadlapati
Venkateswar/u v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., [1990] Suppl. 1 SCR 381,

- relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 797-803
of 1993. F

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.91 of the Karnataka Ad-·
ministrative Tribunal ii; Application No. 1443/91 & dated 9.3.81, & 25.11.82
of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. Nos. 20147, 20148/79, 11343/78 &
1016-1018 of 1981.
G
S.SJavali, Gopal Singh and E.C. Vidyasagar for the Appellant.

R.N_.N. Narasimha Murthy, M.T. George, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Veerap-
pa and P. Mahale for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered: H
"
'

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R.

A Delay condoned m SLP (C) 3464-3469/93 (CC-19593)/93. Both
disposed of by this common order.

Leave granted.

The appellant who was working as Assistant Engineer in Public
B Works Department was transferred on deputation to Bangalore City Cor-
poration under City Bangalore (Cadre and Recruitment Regulation) 1971,
which permitted 75% of vacancies in the cadre to be filled in by deputation
from P.W.D. In 1977 Karnataka Municipal Corporation Rules were framed
under which the appellant was absorbed as Assistant Executive Engineer -
C in the Corporation. Validity of these rules and absorption of the appellant
was assailed in the High Court by way of a Writ Petition which was allowed.
The rules were struck down and the absorption of the appellant in the
Corporation was set aside. In 1981 the Govt. issued an Ordinance removing
the infirmity in the rules. It was replaced by the Karnataka Municipal
Corporation Amendment Act, 1981 (Act 40 of 1981), for short 'the Act'.
D
Section 8 of the Act reads thus:

"8. Validation :- (1) The Karnataka Municipal Corpora-
tions Rules, 1977 made in notification No. HMA 270
MUN 77 dated 19th Dec., 1977 and published as GSR 390
E
m the Karnataka Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 22nd
Dec., 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules) shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment,
decree
. or offer of anv. court or other authority or in the
principal Act, be deemed to be as valid and effective for
-
F all purposes as if the said rules had been made under the
Principal Act as amended by this Act and accordingly -

(a) all actions or things taken or done (including appoint-
ments and promotions made) under the said rules shall,
for all purposes be deemed to be and to have always been
G taken or done in accordance with law;

(b) (i) suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or
continued in any court or tribunal or before any authority
questioning the validity of any action or thing taken or
H done under the said rules; and
D.DASEGOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 57

(ii) court shall recognise or enforce any decree or order A
declaring that the said rules or any action ·or thing taken
or done thereunder as invalid, on the ground that the rules
were made without giving reasonable opportunity to per-
sons likely to be affected by it to file their objections and
suggestions.
B
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment,
decree or order of any court or other authority or in the
principal Act all appointments of Administrators made or
continued before the commencement of this act shall be
deemed to have been validly made for all pruposes as if C
the said appointment had been made under the Principal .
Act as amended by this act and accordingly all actions
and things taken or done by or under the authority of the
Administrators shall be and shall be deemed to have
always been validly taken or done and no suit or other D
proceedings shall lie or be continued in any court of law
or any other authority on the ground that at the time when
such action or thing was taken or done the appointment
or continuance of the Administrator was not authorised
bylaw."
E
Since the law had been amended and all actions taken including
appointments and promotions were validated the appellant after roming

- into force of the Act, was promoted as Executive Engineer and Superin-
tending Engineer in 1981 and 1990 and Addi. Chief Engineer respectively.
In 1991 those persons who had challenged validity of appellant's appoint- F
ment approached the High Court once again in contempt jurisdiction for
non-implementation of the order passed in 1979. Faced with this situation
the Govt. repatriated the appellant to his parent department, just few
months before his retirement.

According to the appellant this affected him, prejudicially both in G
status and pensionary benefits. He, therefore, approached the Administra-
tive Tribunal which being of opinion that since it could not examine the
validity of orders in favour of appellant challenging his continuance which
was pending in the High Court and the appellant was not going to suffer
as he is bound to be paid pension either by the Corporation or the State H
'~

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R.

A Govt., the petition had spent out its utility and, therefore, dismissed it as ---y
infructuous.

In Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & A11r. v. Broach Borough
Municipality & Ors., [1970] 1 SCR 388, this court held thus:

B "When a legislature sets out to validate a tax declared by
a court to be illegally collected under an ineffective or an
invalid law, the cause for ineffectiveness or invalidity must
be removed before validation can be said to take place
effectively. The most important condition, of course, is
c that the legislature must possess the power to impose the
tax, for, if it does not, the action must ever remain inef-
fective and illegal. Granted legislative competence, it is
not sufficient to declare merely that the decision of the
Court shall not bind for that is tantamount to reversing
the decision in exercise of judicial power which the legis-
D lature does not possess or exercise. A court's decision
must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based
are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not
have been given in the altered circumstances ......... .

If the legislature has the power over the subject matter
E
and competence to make a valid law, it can at any time
make such a valid law and make it retrospectively so as
to bind even past transactions. The validity of a validating

F
law, tharefore, depends upon whether the legislature pos-
sesses the competence which it claims over the subject
matter and whether in making the validation il removes
-
the de.feet which the courts had found in the existing law
and makes adequate provisions in the Validating law for
a valid imposition of the tax."
-
G In the above case the Validation Ac! was upheld. The same view was
reiterated in Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara, etc. v. Central Provinces Syndi-
cate Ltd. & Anr., etc., [1970] 3 SCR 745 and Yadlapati Venkateswarlu v. State
of Andhra Pradesh
, & Anr., [1990] Suppl. 1 SCR 381. )...___

It is seen that under the Act the basis on which the 1977 Rules were
H declared void was removed and a appointments made or continued before
D.DASEGOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 59

,.,, the commencement of the Amendment Act were declared to be valid and A
shall always to be deemed to have been validly made for all purpose as if
the said appointments had been made in the Principal Act as amended by
the Act. It is not in dispute that the State legislature is competent to make
the Act. When the Act was made and validated past acts done or proceed-
ings taken, it was a valid Act and removed the defects declared by the
Court. It must be deemed and shall always been deemed that the appoint- B
ment of the appellant as Addi. Chief Engineer is legal and valid. Unfor-
tunately, the Act was not brought to the notice of the High Court when the
direction to repatriate the appellant was made by the High Court. But the
failure to bring to the notice of the court does not have the effect of
nullifying the valid action legislatively taken. c
In these circumstances, the order of the High Court and consequent
>- order of the Govt. repatriating the appellant from the Corporation service
to the State service are declared illegal. Consequently the appellant must
be deemed to have been retired from service as Addi. Chief Engineer of
the Corporation. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The appellant is D
entitled to all the consequential benefits, all pensionary benefits etc. from
the Corporation. No costs.

G.N. Appeals allowed.

-