Holding

Retrospective amendment of the Punjab National Emergency (Concessions) Rules that deprives petitioners of vested seniority rights is ultra vires the Constitution and invalid.

Summary

During the 1962 national emergency, the Punjab Government framed the National Emergency (Concessions) Rules, 1965, granting ex‑military personnel benefits such as seniority when they joined civil service. The petitioners, former army officers appointed as Assistant Engineers in Haryana, claimed seniority based on their military service. In 1976 Haryana amended the Rules retrospectively, redefining "military service" and inserting a proviso that denied the seniority benefit, thereby stripping the petitioners of accrued rights. The petitioners challenged the amendment as unconstitutional, alleging violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, 31 and 311 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that a retrospective amendment that deprives vested rights is ultra vires the Constitution and cannot be justified under Article 309. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals and writ petitions, quashed the High Court orders, and declared the amended provisions void, directing the preparation of a fresh seniority list incorporating the petitioners' military service.

Issues considered

The validity of retrospective amendment of service rules that removes vested rights of ex‑military personnel.
Whether the amendment of the Punjab National Emergency (Concessions) Rules, 1965, under Article 309 is ultra vires the Constitution.
Whether the amendment violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, 19, 31 and 311.
The proper interpretation of the term "military service" in the Rules.

Legislation cited

Punjab National Emergency (Concessions) Rules, 1965s. Rule 2, s. Rule 4(ii)

Subjects

retrospective legislationvested rightsArticle 309military serviceseniorityconstitutional validityfundamental rightsArticle 14Article 16Article 311

Judgment

6Z3
EX. CAPT. K.C. ARORA AND ANOTHER

v. A
STATE OF HARYANA AND. OTHERS
April 26, 1984
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY; E.S, VENKATARAMIAll AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] B

. The Punjab Government Nationai Emergency (Concessions) Rules 1965 Rules
2, and J(ii), as amended by the Haryana Government Gazette Notification No .
. GSR 77/Const/AFt 309/Am.end/(1)/76 dated August 9, 1976 amending the definition
of the experession "Mifitar ::,ervice'' in Rule 2, Constitutional Validity-The
vested accrued right of a Government Servant cannot be taken· away by making.
amendments of the rules with retrospective effect.

In 1962 an emergency was imposed by the Government of India on
account of_tbe external aggression by the Chine;e· forces 'in the Indian
T~rritory. The Government was in great need of youogmen to join the
to
military service at the risk of their lives to serve the nation cope with the
emergc:ncy needs of the Government-of India. The Government of India as D
well as ·the State Governments decided to give certain ben·efits to encourage
the young energetic youths to join military service at the critical juncture o~
national emergency and therefore issued different circulars and advertisements
on radio and tbe'.press promising certain bene~ts to youngmen who join tho
mi!ifary service at the critical junCture. Later on, on the instructions of the
Central Government concessions as were promised through circula~s and by
'other. means were incorporated in. the rules framed by the joint Punjab E
....... ·Government under Article 309 of the Constitution, titled as. "The Punjab
National EmergencY (Concessions) Rules. 1965."

Keeping' in view the needs of the country and assurances and
.concessions contained in conditions of service in executive instructions, the
petitioners and appellants and many others like them joined the army· during-·
the emergency as· commissioned office.rs in 19.63-64 and had rendered more
than five years of service reckoned from 26.10.1982 i. e. date of proclama-
tion of emergency and after their release froni the Army they were _entitled
to benefits vested' in them undez the conditions of service.

The petitioners and appellants and a number of others similar to the G
petitioner~; joined the Haryana· Government as Assistant Engineers. ·conse- ·
quent upon their appointments against tlie vacancies reserved for ex-army
Officers, they became entitled to get their seniority fixed giviog them the
benefit or their military service; but the gradation list prepared however did
· not include their miltary service for the· purposes o( . fixation of their
seniorit~. The State of Haryana just to deprive the petitioners and others
_) similarly situated, of mil]tary service, amended the Jules with retrospective-
H
effect from November 1,1966 vide Haryana ·Government Gazette Notifica-
tion No. GSR 77/Const/Art 309/Amendj(l)/76 dated March 22,1976
illtroclucing a proviso to rule 4 (ij) qf the 1965 Rules and vide Haryana' l
9pvcrnment Ga~~tte N oti~cation No· G~R 182/Const/Art ~09/ Ar:nend/(2)/. J
624 SUPREME COU"RT REPORTS (1984] 3 s.c.R.

76 dated 'August 9,1976. amending Rule 2 of the 1965 Rules. These
· notifications restricted the benefits· of military service upto January 10, 19(i8
A.
the date on which the fir~t emergency ,~a; lifted with the result that the
vested rights· which accrued to the petitioners io l969, 1970 and 1971 ·have
been· taken away. The two writ pe itions Nos. WP 2065/1976·and WP
2065/1976 an<:l WP 1088/1980 challenging the same were dismissed by the
Punjab and Haryana High Court and hence their appeals Nos. CA 3095 and
3096/1980 by way of special leave. Some others directly filed petitions in
I the Supreme .Court under Art 32 and they are WPs 6437 and 6436 of 198'0.

Allowing the appeals and the Petitions, t~c Court

HELD.: 1:1. The Parliament as also the· State; Legislature have
plenary powers to legislate within the field of legislation committed to them
and subject to certain constitutional restrictions they can legislate pros· ·
p'ect.ively as well as retrospectively. [63ZC-D] .

1:2. It is, however, a cardinal principle of construcrioo that every
statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expre>sly or by necessary
implication made to have retrospective effect, But tho rule in general is
·r
0 applicable where the obj~ct of the statute is to affect the vested rights or to
impose new burden or to impair existing obligations; Up less· there are
words in the statute sufficient to show the intention ()f the legislature to
effect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospcc!ive only. Provisions whiclt
touch a r.ight in existence at t.he passing of the statute are not lo be applied
retrospectively in the absence of express enactmeot or nec~ssary intendment.
'The Governor cim also exercise fhe S3me powers under Art. 309 of the
E Constitution and ther,e is not the slightest doubt that the impugned
amendment brought in has been made retrospective. The impugned
amendments in the_ instant case by necessar~ implication have uodoubtedlda
retrospective effect. [6 32D·f]

Harbhajan Singh v. Stare o/Punjab [1977} 2 S.L.R. 180; Ex. Major. N.C
F Singhal v.. Director General Armed For~s Medical Service: A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 628;
State of Mysore v. M.N. Krishna Murty & Ors.~ [19731 2 S.C.R. 575; Raj Kumar
· ·v. Union of llidia & Ors., [1975]3 S.C.R. 963; Wing Commander!. Kumar v.
Union of India & Ors. [1982]'1 S.C.C. 116; B.S. Vadera v. Union of India &
Ors., [1968] 3 S.C.R. 575 ; discussed. . ·

1:3. The Haryana Government cannot take away tbe accrued rights
G of the petitioners and' the appellants by making amendment of the rules with
retrospective effect. The_ impugned rule 4 (ii) of the Punjab qo·vernment
National Emergency (Concessions) Rule, 1965, as amende() by the Haryana
Government Gazette Notification No. GSR. 77/Const./Art. 309/Amend/
(1)/76 dated 22nd March, 1976 .and the Notifica!ion No. G.S.R. 182/
Const/Art/309/ Amebd. (2)/76 dated 9th"" August, 1976 amending the
definition of the t;Xpre~sio~ · 'military service'. in rule 2, are ultra .vires the
Constitution, in so far'as they e,ffect pfejudicially persons who bad ·acquired
rights. (639B~C-D-E) .

State of Gujarat v. ~aman Ita/ l{eshav La! Soni, [1983]·2 S.c.c; 33 ;
roUQw~.
l '·
T~
•
K.C. AR?RA Y. HARYAYA (Jfisra, J.)
. 625
l•
J
Ol!fGJIIAL ]UIUSDICTI0:-1: Writ Petitions Nos. 6436)? of 1980
II
(Under .Article 32 of the Constitution of India]· A. II
·;
AND ·'

Civil Appeals Nos. 3095-96 of 1980 I,

B
: . f\ppcal by Spccialleav!! from the Judgment and Order dated
1
the lOth October, 1980. of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in c.
! · . Writ Petition No. 2065 of 1976 & 1088 of 1980)
I

i
P.C. Blwrtari for the Appellant. a i
i
Dr. Y.S. Clzlta/e and M.G. Ramachandran for Respondents .in l(
'I Writ Petitions.

r
!

V.C•.'!falzajan; J.S. Goel and R.N. Poddar for Respondent.

· The Judgment of the Court wa~ delivered by
D .
I,. ' 1.·
i
f . MISRA, J. The present writ · petitions under Article 32 of the
Constitution and the civil appeals by special leave a~ising out of . ·
d.
!l
petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. raise common
··· questions of law and are, therefore, b~ing-dispo~~d of by II common E :i·• ¥

judgment. · · ; }:
)' ·

The patte;n· of fncts i~ the present group of case~ is the same
and. therefore, it is not necessnry to give the facts of each case
kparatcly. In onler to bring out the points for consideration in these F
rr~!
~ . cases we would like to give the facts of writ petition No. .6436 of !J .J .
' 1980. . . . .
:j '
~ ;
I •
In 1952 un emergency was imposed by the Government of India ;l .
on ?ccount of the external nggrcssiQn by the Chinese forces on the 'J
ln~,an territory. The! Govcrnmdnt was in great need of youngmen G
JOin the military service at the risk of their lives to s~rve the nation
10 I '
·<
~Cope With the emergency needs of the Go,·ernmcnt of India.' The ~ ;'

.ovcrnrncnt of Indiol as well as the St:tt~: Govcriuncnts qccided to
i•vc ·,.
. . certam
· benefits to encourage the young energetiC
· yout.IS
1 t o JOID
• •
, ~'htary service at the critical juncture Qf national emergency. . The \;
H
a ~~crnrncnt in the Stat.:s nnd the Centre issued difi'cr-en~ circulars
. ,: b ad~ertisements on radio and the press promisin~ ccrtam bc~~fits
· iun~u~~cn t.o yougmcn who join the military s~rv1ce at the cn~1cal
..
. . ·. -- I
.i
I
626 SUPRHIE COURT REPrJRTS . . fl984JJ S,c~
' Jn .July 1963 a circular was issued by the Financial Com :i:. ·t
j
'·A' sioner, Punjab wit~ :cgard ~~the con~essions _to civi,lian cmplo::
. and others who Jomed m1htary serv1~e, wlncli will account t
increments, seniority and pension in civil employment.· Later ~r 0

l
on the instructions of the C'enfral Government concessions as wcr~.
promises through circulars and by other means were incorporated in
B. the rules framed by the joint Punjab Government under Article 309

., . .-
of the Constitution.. ·

. Keeping in' view the needs of the. country and assurances
contained in conditions of service iil executive instructions the
c . petitioners and th.c appellants and many others like them joined the. ,
l
t.
army during the .~:mergcncy . mf C'om missi~ned Officers in 1963-64. . ' 1
They were commissioned officers in tbc Indian Army for more . r
.. than five years and after their release from the Army they were
~ entitled to benefits vested in them u.nder the conditions of service.

D The Haryana Government in tile year 1969 advertised 16 pQsls
\
of temporary Assistant Engineers in P. W.D.,· B & R Branch. At
,i the t:me of the advertisemeat on 28th of January, 1969 8 posts'out .
of the total of 16 ·were reserved for· e~-emergency commission~
'officers and servicemen. ·Although the advertisement was for 16 · ·
posts but at the time of selection s5 appointment were. made, 'out of .
which 20 posts were reserved· for ex-emergency . C.:Jmrnissioncd •
o1Icers. Out of this quota of ·10 po-.u only 7 aptXJintril.ents from :-
amon~t the ex-em.eT~ O:,mmiM1on.:rl oi=..-as ~= I!IJ.Ik. '.
.Rcqunite qaaiifi..cations f.:>r n:-ema~ ro~ned ofun allJ
~ic.tmen w-ere as fo~ :
F
.. I. Diploma in ci,·il engineering from a reCQg:nised institu-
.tioo. ·

2, Five 1ears ~ntinuous service with distinguished record.
. . .
G
'

II
A:goati:n:eiFoq: Nto:vu·ke:m:b:e~rc·.:glfe97:0:u:318:~:p~o·
scr:vice; the pcr!od commencing from 26.10."1962 will only be .
.
taken into consideration. •· s.fitvs.•oyfcaterms'pocroaryntinAusosuisstant
· ' · ~
.
Engtncers wc;re advertised out of 18 posts were reserved.. for es· . '·
emergency commissioned officers. At the time of making appaint- }
ments, however, 9~ persons were appointed and out of these 99 pasts

,.
- ~-....,., •• -- ~J.. ,~ ... ••
~

j __ ', . .. .
. K.C. ARORA v, HARYANA (Misra, J.) •627
90 posts were declared ~eserved for ex-emergency commissioned
officers. But agai~ only 7 ex-emergency commissioned officers were A
appointed in' response to t~e advertisement.

Petitioner No. 1 on selection had joined service . on 17th of
August, 1971. The second advertisement· also contained the same
• . t. qualifications as were in the first advertisement. Thus the two 8
petitioners in writ petition Nos. 6436-37 served the Indian Army.for
more than five years and thereafter those petitioners were-appointed
in the service of the Haryana Government as temporary Assistant
Engineers against· the posts reserved for the ex-emerge~cy commis~
sioned officers. There were a number of other persons similar t!) the 0
petitioners who were !llso appointed against the vacancies reserved
for ex~Aimy officers.

The Government of·PuJijab prior to the formation of Haryana
made statutory rules under Article 309 of the Constitution w.hich
are called 'The Punjab National Emergency (Concession) Rules, · D
1965.. The relevant rules 2, 3, 4, and 5 of these rules are as u~der:
\

"2.. Definition.:-: For the purpose of these rules, the. .
expression 'military service' means enrolled or commissioned
service in any of the three· wings ofthe Indian Armed Forces E
(including service as a Warrant Officer) rendered by a person
· during the period of operation of the proclamation of'
· emergency made by the President under ArtiCle 352 of the
Constitution of India on. the 26th October, 196.2 or such
other service as.may hereafter be declared as military service . F
for the purposes of these rules. Any period of miiitary train- .
ing followed by military service shall also be r~ckoned as
Military Service. · ·
' ... '

3. Maximum age~limit and minimum qualification :
G
i) , The maximum age-limit ,prescribed.for appointment to
•
any service o~ . post . shall be relaxed in, favour of a
persop who bas .rendered military ~~rvice tq: the extent
Of his military Service, provided he pr~uces a certificate
from the competent ..authority that he .hild rend~red
continuout· military service for' a.
period of not less . H ·
than ·six months and was · discharged because of demo~
bilisation or reduction not more than three year.s prior
to tht: da~~ t;>f ~i~ re~istration at an employment
(

.. •
628 SUPREME COuRT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R.

exchange or tlle date of his application for employment
under the Government.

1i) A person who has become disabled while in military
s'ervice sha11 also" be entitled to ex~lude from his' age
the period from the date he was disabled up to the
date of his application for appointment to ·any service t'
or post under the Government, or till the end of the
present emergency, whichever is shorter.
·•
iii) In case a person who has rendered military service
does not possess the minimum qualification prescribed· .
b for an~ service or post, he' shall be dee~ed to possess
these qualifications if the appointing authority certifies
that such a person has acquired by experience or other~
. wise qualification equivalent to those prescribed for
. , that service or post.
0
4. Increment.s, seniority and pension : period of military
· service shall count for increments, seniority and pension as
under:- ·

. (i) Increments : The peridd spent by a person on military
E service, after' attaining the minimum age, prescribed ' for
l .
appointment to any service or post, to which he is appointed, - -~
shall count for increments. Where no such minimum age is
prescribed the minimum age shall be as laid down in rules
3.9, 3~10 and 3'11 ·of the Punjab Civit'Services Rules Volume ,.
F II. Tbis" concession shall, however, be admissible ori)y. on
first appointment.

(ii) Seniority : The period of military service mentioned
in clause .(1) shall be'taken into consideration for the pur-
a
ppse .of determining th~ seniority of person who !:)as ren~
·c dered military service.
.. •
..
(iii) Pension: The period of military serv"ice mentioned
.
in ·clause (i) shall count towards pension only in the case of
appointments to· . permanent services or posts under the
Government subject to the following con~itions : ·
H
· (1) The person concerned should have earned a pension
under. military rules in respect. of 'the military service in
question.
•

K.C. ARORA v. HARYANA-(Misra, J.) 629
(2) Any bonus. or gratuity paid in respect of military ser-
vice by the defence authorities sl;all have to be. refunded to A
the State Government.

(3) The period, if any, between the date of discharge
t from military service and the date of •appointment to any
service or post under the Government shall count for· pen- B
•+ sion, provided su.ch period does not exceed one year. Any
period exceeding one year but not ex.. eediog three years may
also be .allowed to count for pen~ion in exceptional . cases
under the orders of the Gl>v-:rnment.
5: Seniority, promotion, increment, pe~sion andleave of a.
Government employees :-The p~!riod spent on military ser- ·
· vice by a ·Government employe~ shall·-.eout}t for. seniority ·'
promotion, i~crement and pension in the service or post held
·by him·immediately before his joining military service. ·A
perman~nt 'Government employee wlio renders military D
service, shall earn leave during, such service according to the
leave rules applicable to him immediately before his joining··
·military service; A ~emporary Government employees shall
duririg military service, be governed by the mihtary rules in .
all respects. The employee concerned shall be entitled to
proforma promotion in his parent department under the
'next below; rule and also to seniority in higher· posts to
which he would otherwise have been entitled if he had not
joined militat'y service.
.F .
According to these rule,s and the previous assurances given by
the Government the petitioners were to be given seniority by· coun-
t~ng period of military service for the purpose of determining
. seniority, increments and pension etc, Immediately on appoint-
ment of the petitioners as temporary Assistant Engineers they
became.
entitled to get their seniority fixed giving them '·the benefit
of their military service but the gradation list prepared, ~owever,
did n,ot include ·the military service of the pe,titioners for the
purpose of fixation of-their seniority. · The State of Haryana just
to deprive-the petitioi?-ers, and others similarly situated, of military
service amended the rules with retrospective effect from lst
November, 1966 vide Haryarla Government Gazette Notification .B
.No. G.S.R. 77/Const/Ait.
..
309/Amend/(1)/76 dated 22nd March '
1976. The Amendment was Iilade in the rule 4(ii) by adding a
proviso, which is in the following terms ;
' ·
•

630 . SUPREME COURT REPORtS. . ti984] 3 s.c.R.
...,-
"Provided. that a person . who has availed of conces-
sion under sub-rule (3) of rule L(3) shall not be entitled to
the concession under this clause."

. The Government also issued a notification No. G.S.R. 182/
Const/Art/. 309/Ame~d/(2)/76 dated 9th Augu~t, 1976 making
amendment in the definition of the expression 'military service' in
.
B •
. rule 2 just to .retreat from •
their previous commitments. ,It reads :
.j
.
, :"Fo( the · purpos"e of these ruleli the expression ·
'military service' means the service rendered ·by a person, who
had be~n enrolled .or commissioned during the period of
:c pperation of the proclamation of em~rgency made by the
President under Article 352 of the Constitution of India on
'26th October~ 1962 .inany of the three wings of· the Indi'an
Arm.ed Forces (including the service as a Warrant Officer)
du;ing the period of the said emergency or such other" service
D as may hereafter. be declared as military ser.vice for the
.'~ purpose of these rules. .An~ period of military training
followed by military service shall also be ~eckoned as military .
s.ervice."

This notification has be~n issued with retr.ospective· effect
·E from Ist cif November, 1966· and restricted the benefits of military
service upto lOth of January, 1968, the date on which . the ·.first
· emergency was lifted with the result that ·the vested rights which · ·. .1-....~
·accrued to the petitioners in 1969, l97~ and . l971 h~ve beeli ·taken
away. '
F
so·me of the ex-milit;uy officers challenged the impugned
·amendment and the consequent gradatioJ?. list by filing two peti-
.tions, writ petition No.:l088 of 19SO and writ petition No. 2065 of
1976 ·in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Article 226
of the Constitution. Both these · wri~ petitions were dismissed by
the High ·court and they gave rise ·to civil appeal Nos. 3096 and
3095 ~f 1980 -respectively. Some of the ex-military officers have
filed writ petitions directly before this Court under Article 32 of
the• Constitution and they ar.e writ petition Nos. 6436 ~nd 6437 of
'
. 1980.
·H
· The petitioners in the ~vrit petitions undet: Article 226 of the
Constitution before the High Court challenged the am~ndment of A. -.
the Punjab· Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules
k.C. ARORA V. HARYANA (Misra, J.)
-~

1965 with retrospective effect as violative of Arts. 14, 16, 19,31 and
311 of the Constitution ·'and prayed fo~ the following relief :

1. · 'lhe Punjab Government National Emergency (Conces-
sion) Ha'ryana First Amendment Rules, 1976. pe .declared
ultra vlres Article l6 of the Constitution of India.
B
2. A writ'in the ~ature of ceftiorqri quashing the seniority
.+ list . of Haryana Service of Engineers, ·PWD (B & ·R
Branch), Class II be issued.

3. A writ in 'the nature of mandamus directing respondents
1 and 2. to declare the pe!itioners senior to responde~ts. · C
...
· ·The High Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners
have availed of the conces~ion un.dcr sub-rule (3) of rule 3 of 1965.
Rules inasmuch as the educational qualifications in the case of the
petitioners had been relaxed 1n terms ofsub-rule (3) of rule 3 and
they had ~wailed of these concessions at the time ·of their recruit- D
ment as te[)lporary Assistant Engineers. Now by the impugned
amendment the concession of doubte benefit has been withdrawn by
. adding the proviso to cl. (ii) of rule 4 introduced, in 1976. previo~
~sly an ex-servicem·en could avail of the concession of . relaxation
in the educational qualification at the time of recruitment on the
E
basis of his military seryice. Under rule 4 he could count military .
service towards seniority. · The proviso has taken. away ·the second "
benefit. The ex-se,rviceman who has been recruited after availling
of·the cqncession in academic qualifications cannot count his
military service towards sepiorlty in the civil post . held by him.
This concession has been withdrawn by the Governor in exercise of F
his powers under proviso to 'Art. 309 of. the Constitution and the
amendment having been made in exercise of the le,gislative powers
conferred on the (}Qverhor by the Constitution are valid and suffer
fro in no infirmity. The High Court also took the view' th!lt there
is no estoppel agains~ tne Government in tlie ~xercise of its legis-
lative soVereign or executi'#e powers. The State could am.end the
1965 Rules and take away the benefits bestowed on the petitioners. ,
! . It also held that the. rules can be f[aiped with retrospective effect
an'd they can take away even vested rights. In· the opinion of the
High Court the diplqmahold~rs i~ engineering on the basis of
their educational qualification formed one class separate from other
ex-emergency commissioned officers .who are degree holders in
engineering and that classification i~ the service can be made on
632 SUPREME COuRT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.
,...
..

.the basis of educatioal qualifications and such a classification is
.A
not bad.

The appellants in the appeals against this judgment of the
High Court reiterated the same contentions before this Court. In
the two petitions _under Art. 32 of Constitution also similar points
have been raised. The main contention on behalf of the appellants
as well as on behalf of the petitioners is that the rules could· not be +•
amended with retrospective effect to deprive them of the vested rights
and if the appellants and the petitioners are entitled to the benefits
of military service perforce t,hey would be much more senior to
o.thers and the gradation list .prepared in complete ignorance of the
c military service will not be according to law.
I
It may be pointed out at the very outset that the Parliament as
. also the S~ate Legislature have plenary powers to legistate within the
field of legislation committed to them and subject to certain con- f
- · · stitutional restrictions they can legislate prospectively ·as well as
I? r.et_rospectively. It is, however, a cardinal principle of consttuctution
. that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressely or
by necessary implicatiqn made to have retrospective effect. But the
~le in general is applicable· wher.e the object of the statute is to.·
. affect the vested rights or to· impose new burden or to impair exist-
ing obligations; Unless there are word's in the statute su.fficjent to
E show the .intention of the legislature to effect existing rigQ.ts, it is
deemed t'o be prospective only. Provisions which· touch a right in
existence at the passing of the statute are not to he applied ietros•
in
pectively .. the absence of express enactment or necessary interid-
ment~· The Governor can also exrcise the same powers under Art.
F · 309 of tile Constitution and there- is not the slightest doqbt that the
_impugned amendment brought in has been made. retrospective. The
impugned amendment in the instant case by necessary implication
have undoubtedly a retrospective effect.

. For the petitioners jt was contended that the benefits acquired
G could not be taken aw\y by an amendmept with retrospective effect. .
It was further contended 'that tl!.e amen~nient was discriminatoJ,"y
. and that the retrospectivity given to the provisions ofthe Amend- ...
ing Act could not cure the discrimination introduced by the Act
and sought to be plrpetuated bY"it. In support ofthis contention
n reliance was placed upon flarbhfljan Singh v. The State of Pu~jab(l),

·(I) [1977] 2 S.L.R .. l80.
K.C. ~RORA v. HARYA]'IA (Misra, J.) 633
In that case t~e question that fell for consideration before the Con-,·
· stitution Bench of the P'unjab and Haryana High Court was regard-
ing the int~rpr~tation of rule 3(iii)(cc)(ii)(b) ofthe Demobilised
Indian Armed· Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies) in
Punjab Civil Service. (Judi&l Branch) (First- Amendment) Rules,
1976. The Demobllised Indian Armed Forces Persopnel (Reservation
·of Vacancies) iri the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, B
i969, liad been repealed and the Demobilised Indian Armed Forces
Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies) in the Punjab Civil Service
(Judicial Branch) Rules; 1975, as amended, were in force and these
. exCluded from the category of released Armed Forces Personnel,
· persons who had joined a civil service :or the Union or a State or a
civil post under the Union or a State•after their release from the
~ c
Armed Forces of the Union. The COl,Jrt dealing with the question '
observed : ...,_ '
)
;. "Now the rule-making.authority mu"st have been aware
that a competitive examination for appointment to the servic;:e .D
had been held under the old rules and appointments were yet .
in the offing. Surely, the rule-making authority did not
intend to exclude from appointment candidates who were
eligible under the old rules but became ineligible by reason
of an · amendment of the rules made after t)le process of
selection had almost reached a finnl stage. The amendment ·E
did not in any manner touch the qualifications of the
candidates. Had the amended rule been in force fron;1:the
beginning, persons in the t~osition ·of the"petitioner might not
bil.Ve accepted any e~ploy_nient and preferred to wait for
selection and appointment to the Punjab Civil ·Service F
(judicial Brancl\). Are they to be penalised "by barring their
entry into the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial. Braach) because
· ·they_ accepted employment at a time when acCeptance of ·such
employment was not a bar to appointment to the service ?
We do not tbinklhat we wiil be justified in attributing such
·an unreasonable intention to the rule-making authority. In G
• I
QUI view, the only reasonable interpretation of the amended
rule, consistent with the prevail'ing; situatiou, is to hold that
only th_ose p~rsons who having joined, the service of the
• Union or the State or a p~st under·the Union or the State
previously continued to hold the post on the date of the com· H
ing into force of the rule, are excluded from appointment to the
·Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). ~he eJ~.pression 'joined
634 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS, (1984) 3 S.C.R·

or joins'· must be_ given a
reasonable interpretation in the ·
context of tl¢ situation and we· think· .that our interpretation.
does not ·strain the .language o.r attributes unreasonableness
to the rule-making authority. In that View, the petitipner
cannot be said to be ineligible for appoi_n tment." . .

B Next reliance was placed upon Ex-Major N.C. Singhal v. :
Director Ge!leral, Armed Forces Medical Service.< 1) ln that case the
conditions of service of the appellant were.governe~ by paragraph 13 ·
of the Army Instruction No. 1/S of 1954· and his previous- full p~y · ·
commissioned service shout<! have been taken in the matter, of
'antedate' for the purpose of his pay. The conditions of service were,
a -however, sought to be altered by Army Instruction No. 176 of 1965 .
to tlie prejudice of tlie ~ppetlant. Tliis Court held that the condi-
. tions . cif service in this regard were not liable to_ ~e altered or
modified to the prejudice of the appellant by a subsequent ad-
ministrative (Army?) instruction which was gi'.!en retrospective effect
from 26th October, 1962.
n.
Reliance ·was also plac,ed upon Sta_te of Mysore v.' M.N.
Kirshna Murthy &Ors.(z) In that case also the rules_ of 1959 had been
amended which sought to disintegrate the service ·which had been
integrate~: This Court held that such amendment made (or the
purpos~ .:~flustifying the illegal promotion made, in the teeth of-the
E protection conferred by Articles 14 and:16(1) of the Constitution of ..
India upon Indian· citizens in Government service, could not be up-
. held.. The power of making rules relating to recruitment and con-
ditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 could not be u~ed
to validate unconstitutional discrimin~tion in promotional_ chances
of Government..servants who belonged to the same category . ..,..
F
· Shri Mahajan appearing for respondent No. 1 in reply on the·
other hand contended that the rules made under the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution are legislative in character and,
therefore, can· be given: effect retrospectively:. In support of his
submission he counted upon Raj Kumar v.· Union~~ India & Or~.(3J
G
·He also relied oil Wing Cpmmander J. Kumar v. Union of India
& Ofs.C'> In that case a ~ontention was raised that the impugn_ed rule
,, . ..
(1) A.I.R. [J9?,2] SC 628.
H (2) [1973] 2 S.C.R. 575
(3) · [19 sJ 3. s.c.R. 963
( 4) [1982] 2 s.c.R: 116 ·
k.c. ARORA ·v. HARYANA (Misra, J.) ·635

not having been specifically declared to be retrospective in operation,
its provisions cannot be applied to the appellan! inasmuch as be had A
been inducted into the R & D cadr~ long prior to the promulgation
of the new rules. This Court dealing with th'e point observed :

"We have aheady found that, as a matter of fact the
practice geneially foitowed ·"in the R. & D Organi.sation even
. prior to .the prom!lgation· o_f the impugned rules, was to B
'+ reckon seniority with reference to· the date of attainment of
the rarik of su6stantive major/equivalent. Even otherwise,
when a statutory rule governing seniority is issued in respect
of a service, the said ru1e would govern the personnel in the
service with effect from the date of its promulgation and in c
so giving effect to the rul~ -in future, there is no element of
retroactivity involved; Of course,. the rules will not operate
.· to deprive any person of promotions already earned in the
past, but, for·purposes of future promotions anp seniority in
the department, the :principles !slid down in the impugned
rule will necessarily govern ~II the personnel alike." D

This case instea'd ofsupporting the contention of Shri Mahajan
goes to strengthen the contention raised on behalf of the appellant
and the petitioners. ..

E
Much emphasis was _laid by Shri Mahajan on the case of
B.S. Vadera v. Union of India.~ Ors.(l) ·In t-hat case the p~titioners,
, · who were wo~king as Assistants, ·were reverted as Upper Divisiop
Clerk in 1967 by the operation of the Railway Board's Secretariat
Clerical Servic~ (Reorganisation) Scheme. The said scheme was
framed on February 5, -1957 but was brought into effect from .F
December I, 19-54. Certain modifications to the scheme relating to
the manner of filing ·up ~f permanent and temporary vac;ancies in
Grade I of the Service were ,made in 1963. The petitioners challeng·
ed the orders of reversion as· illegal inasmuch as their promotion
as Uppe·r D.vision Clerks and later as Assistants had been on a
permanent basis and could· not be :disturbed .and that the scheme as G
well as the. various orders passed by the respondents were violat.ive
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, that the Railway Board
hadno power in law to .frame either. th~ scheme or to modify the
· · scheme so. as to have retrospective effect from December 1, 1954..
This Cou~t held ihat the ranking given to the petitioners as a resu)t H

(1) [1968] 3 SCR 575.
.,I .
636 '"""'"""" wom U984Jh.,,, J
of which the i~pugncd orders of r~~ersion were· passed was in · .
A ~ccordance with the scheme as modtfied. m_I963, and once it is held
that the p-etitioners did ·not sa tisfy the requirement of the ·scherne for
being retained as Assistants, there was no que~tlon of aoy discrimi·
:, 'nation under Article .14 or violation of A~t1~1c 16, and that tbe
Indian Railway Establishment Code had becir Issue~ by the President
'. in exercise of lhc powers vested in him by the proviso to Article 3()9 ·
B
of the Constitution. Rule !57 of the Cod!! giv<;s the Railway Board
full powers 1o .make rules <;>f gcner~l application to non-g~ettcd
r'aiJw;~y servants under their control. a~d th.~ power to make rules .l
with rctrospe~livc effect cannot be-denied to the Railway Board...
'I
.l
.~
! . Accordingly, the schcm~ framed by tbe said Board i_n 1957 could be
c made rctrosiicetivcly' clfcctive fro'm December 1, 1954, This c'ase ·I
· undoubtdcly supporli· Shri Mahaj:m in his contention that the ru les
can be made with retro-s pective elfcct and there is nothing wrong in
. I

i! ·such a rule. This case, however, did not d~al witll the point
specifically raised in the prcscn't c~sc.

'~
n.
,.,
i~
The question, however, has been· pointedly considered 'rec~ntly
by a Constitution Bench of this Court . in Sra!<? of Gujarai v. Ramon
1.:: Lal K<'rhm• La! Soni.(1) Iri that case the Gujarat Panehayats Service
; . . was initully constitu~ed soon after the. passing of the Gujarat
Panchayat~ Act. : There were three c~dres :the district cadre, the
E taluqa cadre ·and the Iocal ·cadrc. Secretaries. 00\eers and servants
of the olu village panchayats unJcr the llomb:ty Villag~ Panchayats
Act, 1958 b~camc secretaries, officers and servants of the new _gram
panchayats under s.325(2)(x) of the Gujarat Panchayats Ac!, 1961.
. .
p
Talatis aud kotwuls, who were governml!nt scrvallts · wcrl! secretaries
and olllc.:rs of the oiJ villag.: panchayats .und.:r the Bomb.1y Village.
. Panchayats Act :~nJ so they became sccrctarks and officers of the
new gram panchayats unda the Guj;1rat Panchayats Act. 1961.
Svmc munidp<tlitics conslitut.:d for municipal districts and municipal
boroughs under the 13omba.y D istrict Municipal Act and lotte Bombay
Municipal lloroughs Act, as appli<:d to areas in tlic Stale of Gujarat.
G were converted into Gram anJ Nugar Panch~ynts under section 307
· of the Gujarat Panchayats Act anu all olficcrs and servants io the
cmrh>y of such municip:1litics bcc:1mo: officers nnd scrv~nts of
interim _l'anchayals and alll)cat..:J t~> the pinchayat sc~vice. Thus,
~ccrctanes und olliccrs of ·dissolved municipalities · also became
R
secretaries nnd olllc~:rs of Gram and Nagar pimchayats. District

~~> [I<JKlJ 2 sec JJ •
•
- ~
ICC. ARORA v. HARYANA (Misra, J.) 637

·Local Boards con'Stituted under the Bombay Local Boards Act stood A
dissolved on the passing of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and all
officers and servants in tl:te employment of the Board were deemed
to be transferred to the service ·of the successor District Panchayat
under section 326 of the Gujarat Pailchayats Act. Also allocated to
the panchayat service were those government servants who are trans-
' -t ferred to the panchayat under section 157 and such other officers B_
· and servants employed in the state service as wer~ necessary. ·All
these secretaries, officers and servants became p1embers of a service
·under the State as soon ,as they were allocated to the panchayat
service . But, by the Amending Act, secretaries, offi~ers and.servants
of Gram and Nagar Panchayat who were allocated to the panchayat
.·c
service from the ranks of tl1e ex-municipal employees were. sought
to be meted out .·differwtial treatm~nt ·.from the other members of
the panchayat service, more particularly the secretaries, officer and
serVants of Gram and Nagar P~nchayats who were drawn from the,
ranks of secretaries, officer and servants of old village panchayats,
that is, the Talatis and Kotwals. Their status as members of a service
under the state was to go with no option to them. R~trospectivity was
sought to be given to the AmendingAct so that they could not claim
that they were ever' government servants 'and so could not be made
to cease to be government. servants and so that they could not claim
that they were singled out for differential treatment for if the~ were
never in the panchayat service they could not complain of being . E
taken out of the panchayat service. Brother 0. Chinnappa Reddy
speaking for the Court emphatically observed:-

Now in 1978 before the Amending Act.was passed
·. thanks to the provisions of the principle Act of 1961 the ex- F
municipal employees who had been allocated to the panchayat
service as Secretaries Officer and servants of Gram and
Nagar. Panchayats, had achieved the status of gov.ernment
servants. Their status as government servants' could not be
. extingu.ished so long as the posts were not abolished and their
services were not terminated in accordance with the provisions G
of Article 311 of the Constitution. Nor was it permissible to
single them out for differential treatment. That would offend
Article 14 of the Constitution. An attempt was made to
-'•) ' . justify the purported differentiation'on the basis of history and
ancestry as it were. · It was said . that Talatis. and Kotwals
'

• ' w
.
who became secretaries, officers and servants of Gram and
Nagar Panchayats were government servants, even .to start
' I ' • •
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R. 'f._. .

- with, wbile municipal employees who became such secre-
A
taries, officers nnd servants of Gram and Nagar -Panchayats
were_ not. Each carried the mark or the 'brand' of his origin
and a classification on the . basis of the source from which.·
they came
into the service~ it was claimed, was permissible.
is
We .are-cle.ar that it not. Once they had joined the common
. stream of service to perform the same duties; it is clearly not
-t'
pe~missible to make any classification on the basis of their
origin. Such a classification would be unreasonable and
entirely .irrelevant to the object sought to be achieved. It is
...
to navigate around these two obstacles of Article 311 and
Article 14 that the Amending Act is sought to be made
.c · retrospective, to bring about. an artificial sit~ation as if the
erstwhile muitici.pal employees never became members of a
service under the State. Can a l~w be made to destroy today's
accrued constitutional rights by artificially reverting to a
situation which existed 17 years ago ? No.

D
The legislation iS pure and simple self-deceptive if we
may use such an expres<>i9n with reference to a legislature-
made law. The legislature is.. undoubtedly competent to
legislate with retrospective effect to take away or impair any
vested right acquired under existing laws but since the laws
'E are made under a written Constitution and have to conform
to the dos and don'ts of the Constitution, neither prospective
nor retrospective laws can be niade s~ to contravene funda-
mental rights.... The law inust satisfy the requirements of the
Constitution ·today taking into account the accrued or
acquire~ rights of the parties today. The law cannot say 29
· years ago the parties had_no rights, tfierefore, the require-.
· ments of the Constitution will be satisfied if the law is dated
back by 20 years. w~ are concerned with today's rights and
not yel)terday's. A h~gislatur~ cannot legislate today with
reference to a situation'that obtained 20 years ago and· ignore
G the march of events and the constitutional rights accrued in
the course of the 20 years. That would be most arbitrary,
unreasonable and a negation. of history .. ·.._.. ·.......Today's . '·
equals cannot be made unequal by saying that they were un-
equal 20 years ago and we will restore that position by making
H a law 'today and making it retrospective. Constitutil)nal rights,
constitutional obligations and constituti.onal consequences •
~nncit be tampe~ed with that way. A law which if made toc}ay
.
1;- '
.
•
K.C. ARORA v. HARYANA (Misra, J.) 639 , '
"
would ~e plainly invalid as offcll4iing constitutional provisions
in the context of the existing situation cannot become val,id by · A
being made retrospective. Past virtue (constitutional) cannot.
be made to wipe out prese1,1t vice (constitutional) by making
retrospective laws. We are, therefore, firmly of the view that ..
the· Gujarat Panchayafs ·(Third Amendment) Act 1978 i~
• it . um,;onstitutiorial as it offends Articles 311 and 14 and is
B
arbitrary and unreasonable."
,,
In view of this late.st pronoun-cement by the. ConstitQtion
Bench of this Court, the law appears to be well settled and the
Haryana Government cannot take away the accrued rights of the
petitioners and the appellants by making amendment of tbe rules c
with retrospective effect.
For. the foregoing discussion the writ petitions as well as the
appeals are allowed and the ord~rs of the High Court dated October
10, 1980 are quashed and the impugned rule 4(ii) of the Punjab
Government National Emergency (Concessions) Rules 1965 as-a'lrlen- · D
ded by the Haryana Government Gazette Notification No.GSR 77/
Const/Art. 309/Amendj(l)/76 dated 22nd f\farch 1976 and the Noti- -~
fication No. GSR. 182/Const/Art. 309/A'rnend/(2)/76 dated '9 August
1976 amending the definition orthe expression 'military service' in .
-rule 2 are declared to be ultra vires tlie Constitution in so far as
they affect prejud\cially persons who had acquired rights as stated ·E
above. A writ in the Qature of mandamus is issued directing ,respon-
dents Nos. 1 and 2 to prepare the S!!n1ority list afresh in the light
of the decision of this Court taking into' consideration the military
service rendered by the petitioners as well as the appellants.
In the circumstances of the case however there will be no
· order as to costs. · F

S.R. Appeals & Pet,tions allowed. .

).

! .,