Holding

The appellant is not entitled to compensation; the Cabinet decision is not a Government Order, Article 310(2) does not impose compensation without a contractual term, Section 4(b) creates no liability, and legitimate expectation does not apply.

Summary

J.P. Bansal was appointed as a judicial member and later acting Chairman of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal with a tenure ending on 18 September 2000. The Tribunal was abolished by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (Repeal) Ordinance, 1999, which automatically terminated his appointment. Bansal filed a writ petition seeking compensation for the balance of his tenure, relying on a purported Cabinet decision, Article 166 of the Constitution, Article 310(2), Section 4(b) of the Ordinance, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The High Court dismissed the petition, and the Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, holding that the Cabinet decision did not amount to a Government Order, that Article 310(2) does not impose compensation absent an explicit contractual term, that Section 4(b) created no liability, and that the principle of legitimate expectation was inapplicable. Consequently, no compensation was payable.

Issues considered

Whether a Cabinet decision can be treated as a Government Order under Article 166 of the Constitution.
Whether Article 310(2) obliges payment of compensation for premature termination of a tenure appointment in the absence of a contractual stipulation.
Whether Section 4(b) of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (Repeal) Ordinance, 1999, creates any liability to pay compensation.
Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies to the appellant’s claim for compensation.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 166, s. Article 310(2)

Subjects

compensationtenure appointmentabolition of tribunalArticle 166Article 310legitimate expectationgovernment orderstatutory interpretationservice law

Judgment

J.P. BANSAL A
v.
ST ATE OF RAJAS THAN AND ANR.

MARCH 12, 2003

[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 166 and 310(2)-Rajasthan Taxes
and Tribunal Act, 1995-Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (Repeal) Ordinance,
1999-Section 4(b)-Tenure appointment as member in State Taxation C
Tribunal-Subsequent abolition of the Tribunal-Post automatically coming
to an end-Claim for compensation for the balance tenure by appointee-
Reliance on cabinet decision-Claim rejected by courts below-On appeal,
held: Appointee not entitled to compensation-Cabinet decision cannot be
construed as Government Order as the action was not taken by competent
authority in the name of head of the State-There was no stipulation regarding D
compensation in the contract of appointment and hence Article 310(2) is not
applicable-No liability to pay compensation is incurred under the repealed
Act-Theory of legitimate expectation is not applicable in the facts of the
case-Administrative Law-Theory of Legitimate Expectation.

Interpretation of Statutes : E
Elementa1y principle of interpreting a statute is to gather the mens or
sententia legis of the legislature - Where language of the statute is clear, the
intention is to be gathered from the language used - Where the intention of
legislature is conveyed, Judge should not proclaim to play role of law maker
- There is distinction between adjudication and legislation - Judicial Propriety. F
Appellant was appointed judicial member of Rajasthan Taxation
Tribunal in terms of Notification issued by Finance Department of
Respondent-State under Rajasthan Taxes and Tribunal Act, 1995.
Subsequently he was appointed to discharge functions of Chairman of the G
Tribunal till the appointment of new Chairman. State Government issued
Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (Repeal) Ordinance, 1999 abolishing the
Tribunal and the matters and proceedings pending before it, stood
automatically transferred to High Court. On abolition of Tribunal
continuance of appellant as Chairman also automatically came to an end.
933 H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A Appellant filed writ petition claiming compensation for the balance
tenure of his 'appointment. He relied on the cabinet decision to release his
salary for the balance period. Single Judge of High Court dismissed the
writ petition holding that no interference was called for as the Tribunal
itself was abolished; that exact amount of compensation could only be
B decided by competent Court after taking evidence of the parties; that the
cabinet decision was a matter of discretion of the Government and it was
open to the appellant to make a representation to the concerned
authorities. Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of High Court.

Appellant contended that the decision of the Cabinet was enforceable
C as the same partook the character of Government Order under Article
166 of the Constitution; that compensation was payable in view of Article
310(2) of the Constitution; that under Section 4(b) of the Ordinance, any --·
obligation or liability accrued or incurred under the Act repealed are not
affected by the repeal; and that since there has been violation of the
legitimate expectation of the appointee to continue till the end of the tenure
D period, by application of the principle of legitimate expectation, the State
Government was bound to pay compensation irrespective of whether there
was any Cabinet decision earlier or not.

Respondent-State contended that there was no Cabinet decision; that
even ifthere would have been any such Cabinet decision, it could not meet
E the requirement of a Government Order as envisaged under Article 166
of the Constitution; that the termination of appointment came to be
effectuated on the basis of legislative action, therefore, there was no scope
for grant of any compensation; that the principles of legitimate expectation
or Section 4(b) of the Ordinance have no application to the facts of the
p case.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The decision of the Cabinet cannot be construed as
Government Order. It has not been established that there was any
G Government Order in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution. The
Constitution requires that action must be taken by the authority concerned
in the name of the Governor. It is not till this formality is observed that
the action can be regarded as that of the State. Constitutionally speaking
the Council of Ministers are advisors and as the head of the State, the
Governor is to act with the aid or advise of the Council of Ministers.
H
J.P. BANSAL v. STATE 935
-· Therefore, till the advice is accepted by the Governor, views of the Council A
of Ministers do not get crystalised into action of the State.
1941-G, H; 942-AI

R. Chitra/ekha etc. v. State of Mysore and Ors., AIR (1964) 1823; L.G.
Chudhari v. The Secretary L.S. G. Department Government of Bihar and Ors.,
AIR (1980) SC 383; The State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, AIR (1961) B
SC 493 and Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., AIR (1963) SC
395, referred to.

2.1. As per Article 310(2) of the Constitution of India, compensation
is payable for premature termination of contractual service. The clause C
is only an enabling provision which empowers the Governor to enter into
the contract with specially qualified person(s) providing for payment of
compensation where no compensation is payable under the doctrine
"service at the pleasure of the State". In the absence of any specific term
regarding compensation, it cannot ·be countenanced that the intention was
to pay it. Had there been an inbuilt requirement to pay compensation, D
there was no necessity for specifically incorporating a provision in that
regard. A bare reading of Clause (2) makes it clear that there can be a
stipulation for payment of compensation in the contract to a person who
is holding a civil post under the Union or a State, if before the expiry of
an agreed period that post is abolished or he is, for reasons not connected
with any misconduct on his part, required to vacate the post. Being an E
enabling provision in the matter of payment of compensation on the basis
of a contractual obligation, it cannot be said that even when there is no
stipulation in a contract of employment, the same is implicit. (942-8-EJ

Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1992) SC 1872; R. F
Rajendran and Ors: etc. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., AIR (1982) SC
1107; State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Kai/ash Chand Mahajan and
Ors., 11992) Supp. 2 SCC 351 and State of A.P. and Ors. v. Bollapragada
__... Suryanarayana and Ors., AIR (1992) SC 1872, distinguished.

2.2. The elementary principle of interpreting or construing a statute G
is to g.ather the mens or sententia legis of the legislature. Interpretation
postulates the search for the true meaning of the words used in the statute
as a medium of expression to communicate a particular thought. The task
is not easy as the "language" is often misunderstood even in ordinary
conversation or correspondence. Although in the matter of correspondence
or conversation the person who has spoken the words or used the language H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A can be approached for clarification, the legislature cannot be approached ·--
as the legislature, after enacting a law or Act, becomes functus officio so
far as that particular Act is concerned and it cannot itself interpret it. No
doubt, the legislature retains the power to amend or repeal the law so made
and can also de-clare its meaning, but that can be done only by making
another law or statute after undertaking the whole process of law-making.
B Statute being an edict of the legislature, it is necessary that it is expressed
in clear and unambiguous language. 1942-G, H; 943-A, B]

Palace Admn. Board v. Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuran, AIR
(1980) SC 1187, referred to.
c 2.3 ..Where the "language" is clear, the intention of the legislature is
to be gathered from the language used. What is to be borne in mind is as
to what has been said in the statute as also what has not been said. A
construction which requires, for its support, addition or substitution of
words or which results in rejection of words has to be avoided, unless it is
D covered by the rule of exception, including that of necessity. (944-A, Bl

Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd v. Custodian of Vested Forests,
AIR (1990) SC 1747; Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corpn., AIR
(1°966) SC 1678 and A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, 11984] 2 SCC
500, referred to.
E
Kirby :v. leather, (1965) 2 All ER 441, referred to.

2.4. Whe.re the words are clear, there is no obscurity, there is no
ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is
F no scope for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending
or altering the statutory provisions. In that situation the Judges should
not proclaim that they are playing the role of a law-maker merely for an
exhibition of judicial valour. They have to remember that there is a line,
though thin, which separates adjudication from legislation. That line
should not be crossed or erased. This can be vou·chsafed by "an alert
G recognition of the necessity not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained
reluctance to do so". Indeed, the Court cannot reframe the legislation as
it has no power to legislate. 1943-D, E; 944-CI

State of Kera/a v. Mathai Verghese, 119861 4 SCC 746 and Union of
India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal AIR (1992) SC 96, referred to.
H
J.P. BANSAL v. STATE 937
Duport Steels Ltd. v. Sirs, (1980) t All ER 529, referred to. A
Some Reflections on the Reading()( Statutes by Frqnkfi1rter in "Essc1ys
on Jurisprudence", Columbia law Review, referred to.

3. Section 4(b) of Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (Repeal) Ordinance,
t 999 also does not in any way assist the appelllmt bec11use there ls no B
obligation or liability accrued or incurred under the repealed Act to pay
compensation. [946-8, Cl

Sri Justice SK. Ray v. State of Orissa and Ors., JT (2003) 1 SC 166,
distinguished.
c
4. The principles of 'legitimate expectation' have no application to
the facts of the present case. The principle is at the root of the rule of law
and requires regularity, predictability and certainty in governments'
dealings with the public. [946-G]
D
Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Sor;:iety v. Union ofIndia, (1992] 4 SCC
and 477; National Building Construction Corpor'1tion v. S. Raghunathan and
Others, [1998] 7 SCC 66, referred to.

Pierson v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1997) 3 All
ER 577; Council· of Civil Service Unions and Ors. v. Minister for the Civil E
Service, (1985) AC 374; R. v. IRC. Exp. Preston. (1985) AC 835 and Hughes
v. Department of Health and Social Security (Hl), (1985) AC 776, referred
to.

'Introduction to the study of the Law of the Constitution' by Dicey 10th
Edn. 1968 p. 203, referred to. F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5982 of2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.2000 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.S.A. No. I l of 2000.
G
C.K. Garg, S.B. Sanyal, Ms. Deepti Choudhury for Ms. Indra Makwana
for the Appellants.

D.K. Thakur, Ms. Bharati Upadhyaya, Ranji Thomas for V.N.
Raghupathy, for the Respondent.
H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant's prayer for issuing a writ of
mandamus to the State of Rajasthan to pay compensation on cessation of
functioning as Chairman of the abolished Rajasthan Taxation and Tribunal
(in short 'the Tribunal') having been turned down by learned Single Judge
B and Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, this appeal has been
preferred. As the core question involved is pristinely legal, it is unnecessary
to enter into the factual aspects in detail.

Factual panorama in a nutshell is as follows:
c Appellant was appointed as Judicial Member of the Tribunal in terms
of notification dated 16.9.1995 issued by the Finance Department (Taxation
Division) of the Government of Rajasthan. Appointment of the appellant was
made by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of
sub-section 12) of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Taxes and Tribunal Act, 1995
D (in short 'the Act'). By the notification dated 16.9.1995 referred to above,
Chairman and the technical member were also appointed. Subsequently, he
was appointed to discharge functions of Chairman of the Tribunal till
appointment of regular Chairman. This contingency arose on the previous
Chairman attaining the age of 65 years. State Government vide notification
dated 27.2.1999 issued an Ordinance No.1/1999 styled The Rajasthan Taxation
E Tribunal (Repeal) Ordinance, 1999 (in short 'the Ordinance'). The same
became operative w.e.f. the date of notification i.e. 27.2.1999. By the above
Ordinance under Section 5 matters and proceedings pending before Tribunal
on the date of commencement of the Ordinance stood automatically transferred
to the High Court for disposal. As a consequence of Tribunal being abolished,
p continuance of appellant as Chairman automatically came to an end. Appellant
claimed compensation of Rs. 5,35,648 with interest @ 15% per annum by
filing a writ petition on the ground that his tenure appointment was to continue
up to 18.9.2000. Since there was a premature termination of the tenure
appointment, claim of compensation for the balance period from the date of
termination of the appointment till 18.9.2000 (which according to him was
G the last date of the period of tenure appointment) was made. The writ
application was filed before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench. The
stand of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that there was a
Cabinet decision taken to release salary to the appellant for the balance
period which was to be paid. As the tenure of the appellant could not have
H been curtailed, he was entitled to compensation. By judgment dated 27 .9.1999
J.P. BANSAL v. STATE [ARIJ!T PASAYAT, J.) 939

in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4379 of 1999 the writ petition was dismissed by A
learned Single Judge. It was noted that the validity of the Ordinance was not
challenged. Since the Tribunal itself was abolished and all cases pending
before it have been transferred to the High Court, no interference was called
for. It was noted that the exact amount of compensation can only be decided
by a competent court after taking ,evidence of the parties. So far as
implementation of the Cabinet decision is concerned, it was noted that the B
same was a matter of discretion of the Government and it was open to the
appellant to make a representation to the concerned authorities. It was not
open to the High Court to enforce the Cabinet decision. The matter was
carried in appeal before the Division Bench which dismissed the same holding
that the learned Single Judge has pronounced a well-reasoned judgment and C
no interference is called for.

Learned counsel for the appellant primarily took three stands in support
of the appeal. Firstly, it was submitted that the decision of the Cabinet was
enforceable. In the .meeting of the Cabinet four decisions were taken. They
related to: (1) Promulgation of Ordinance, (2) repatriation of the Technical D
Member to his parent department, (3) absorption of the members of the staff
and (4) payment of compensation to the appellant. While the first three
decisions were implemented; only the last one relating to payment of
compensation was not implemented. The stand taken by the State Government
cannot partake the character of Government Order under Article 166 of the E
Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') is not tenable.
Secondly, clause (2) of Article 310 of the Constitution deals with payment
of compensation on premature cessation of a tenure appointment on the basis
of contract to that effect. Even though there was no contractual prescription
for payment of compensation, that has to be taken as inbuilt requirement in
the spirit of clause (2) of Article 310. There has to be interpretation of the F

- provisions for giving effect to constitutional mandates. The decision taken by
the Cabinet was in line with the said provision and, therefore, the High Court
was not justified in refusing the grant of compensation. Finally, since there
has been violation of the legitimate expectation of the appellant to continue
till the end of tenure period, by application of the principle of legitimate G
expectation the State Government was bound to pay compensation irrespective
of whether there was any Cabinet decision earlier or not and that .would not
make any difference. Section 4(b) of the Ordinance also has relevance in that
context. Any obligation or liability accrued or incurred under the Act repealed
are not be affected by the repeal.
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 2 S.C.R.

A In support of the ~tands reliance was placed on following decisions:
(l.G. Chaudhari, v. The Secretary, L.S.G. Dept., Govt. of Bihar and Ors.,
AIR (1980) SC 383, State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Kai/ash Chand
Mahajan and Ors., [ 1992] Supp. 2 SCC 351, R. Rajendran and Ors. etc. etc.
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., AIR (1982) SC 1107, State ofA.P. and Ors.
B v. Bo/lapragada Sury1anarayana and Ors.. [1997] 6 sec 258, Dr. l.P. Agarwal
v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1992) SC 1872 and Sri Justice S.K. Ray v.
State of Orissa and Ors., JT (2003) 1 SC 166.

Jn response, learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan submitted that
there was no Cabinet decision in the line submitted by the appellant. Even if
C there would have been any such Cabinet decision, it cannot meet the
requirement of Government Order, as envisaged under Article 166 of the
Constitution. Further, the termination of the appointment came to be effectuated
on the basis of legislative action. Therefore, there is no scope for grant of any
compensation. The decisions relied upon have no application as there were
specific provisions for payment of compensation in the concerned statutes.
D The principles of legitimate expectation have no application to the facts of
the case, as are the provisions of Section 4(b) of the Ordinance.

There is no. dispute that under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act,
a Judicial Member was to hold office for a term of five years from the date
E on which he enters upon the office or till he attains the age of sixty two years,
whichever is later. In view of this undisputed position, the controversy lies
within the very narrow compass.

Article 166 of the Constitution deals with the conduct of Government
business. The said provision reads as follows:
F
"166. Conduct of business of the Government of a State. - (I) All
executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to
be taken in the name of tfie Governor.
-
(2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of
the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified
-
G
to
in rules be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or
instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question
on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed
by the Governor .

.H (3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction
J.P. BANSAL v. STATE (ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 941
of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation A
among Ministers of the said business insofar as it is not business with
respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required
to act in his discretion."

Clause {I) requires that all executive action of the State Government shall
have to be taken in the name of the Governor. Further there is no particular B
formula of words required for compliance with Article 166{1 ). What the
Court has to see is whether the substance of its requirement has been complied
with. A Constitution Bench in R. Chitralekha etc. v. State of Mysore and
Ors., AIR (1964) 1823 held that the provisions of the Article were only
directory and not mandatory in character and if they were not complied with C
it could still be established as a question of fact that the impugned order was
issued in fact by the State Government or the Governor. Clause (1) does not
prescribe how an executive action of the Government is to be performed, it
only prescribes the mode under which such act is to be expressed. While
clause (1) in relation to the mode of expression, clause (2) lays down the
ways in which the order is to be authenticated. Whether there is any D
Government order in terms of Article 166, has to be adjudicated from the
factual background of each case. Strong reliance was placed by learned counsel
for the appellant on L. G. Chaudhari (supra) to contend that fo~ all practicable
purposes the decision of Cabinet has to be construed as a Government order,
because three of the decisions taken by the Cabinet have been implemented. E
As noted above, learned counsel for the State took the stand that neither in
the writ petition nor before the High Court, the Cabinet decision itself was
produced. In fact, the Cabinet memorandum and the order of the Cabinet
show that no decision was taken to pay any compensation. In this connection

- reference is made to the Cabinet memorandum dated 18.3.1993 and the
decision No. 57 of 1999. It was further submitted that even if it is conceded
for the sake of argument that such decision was taken, the same cannot be
F

enforced by a writ petition.

- We need not delve into the disputed question as to whether there was
any Cabinet decision, as it has not been established that there was any
Government order in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution. The Constitution G
requires that action must be taken by the authority concerned in the name of
the Governor. It is not till this formality is observed that the action can be
regarded as that of the State. Constitutionally speaking the Council of Ministers
are advisors and as the head of the State, the Governor is to act with the aid
or advice of the Council of Mini5'ters. Therefore, till the advice is accepted H,
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 2 S.C.R.

A by the Q9vernor, views of the Council of Ministers does not get crystalised
into action of the State. (See: The State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh
AIR (1961) SC 493, Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., AIR
(1963) SC 395. That being so, the first plea of the appellant is rejected.

Coming to the plea relating to clause (2) of Article 310, it has to be
B noted that compensation is payable for premature termination of contractual
service. The clause is only an enabling provision which empowers the
Governor to enter into the contract with specially qualified person(s) providing
for payment of compensation where no compensation is payable under the
doctrine "service at the pleasure of the ~tate". In the absence of any specific
C tenn regarding compensation, it cannot be countenanced that the intention
was to pay it. Had there been an inbuilt requirement to pay compensation as
contended by the appellant, there was no necessity for specifically
· incorporating a provision in that regard. A bare reading of clause (2) makes
it clear that there can be a stipulation for payment of compensation in the
contract to a person who is holding a civil· post under the Union or a State,
D if before the expiry of an agreed period that post is abolished or he is, for
reasons not connected with any misconduct on his part, required to vacate the
post. Being an enabling provision in the matter of payment of compensation
on the basis of a contractual obligation, it cannot be said that even when there
is no stipulation in a contract of employment, the same is implicit.

E Submission of learned counsel that such a provision is inbuilt and has
to be read into the Act and the Ordinance is clearly unacceptable.

ft is said that a statute is an edict of the legislature. The elementary
principle of interpreting or construing a statute is to gather the mens or
p sententia legis of the legislature.

Interpretation postulates the search for the true meaning of the words
used in the statute as a medium of expression to communicate a particular
thought. The task is not easy as the "language" is often misunderstood even
in ordinary conversation or correspondence. The tragedy is that although in
G the matter of correspondence or conversation the person who has spoken the
words or used the language can be approached for clarification, the legislature
cannot be approached as the legislature, after enacting a law or Act, becomes
functus officio so far as that particular Act is concerned and it cannot itself
interpret it. No doubt, the legislature retains the power to amend or repeal the
H law so made and can also declare its meaning, but that can be done only by
J.P. BANSAL v. STATE [ARIJJT PASAYAT, 1.] 943
making another law or statute after undertaking the whole process of law- A
making.

Statute being an edict of the legislature, it is necessary that it is expressed
in clear and unambigunus language. In spite of Courts saying so, the draftsmen
have paid little attention and they still boast of the old British jingle "I am
the parliamentary draftsman. I compose the country's laws. And of half of B
the litigation, I am undoubtedly the cause", which was referred to by this
Court in Palace Admn. Board v. Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuran, AIR
(1980) SC 1187 at. P.1195. In Kirby v. Leather, (1965] 2 All ER 441 the
draftsmen were sev~rely criticized in regard to Section 22(2)(b) of the (UK)
Limitation Act, 1939, as it was said that the section was so obscure that the C
draftsmen must have been of unsound mind.

Where, however, the words were clear, there is no obscurity, there is
no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is
no scope for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending
or altering the statutory provisions. Jn that situation the Judges should not D
proclaim that they are playing the role of a law-maker merely for an exhibition
of judicial valour. They have to remember that there is a line, though thin,
which separates adjudication from legislation. That line should not be crossed
or erased. This can be vouchsafed by "an alert recognition of the necessity
not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained reluctance to do so''. (See: E
Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes in "Essays on
Jurisprudence", Columbia Law Review, P.51.)

It is true that this Court in interpreting the Constitution enjoys a freedom
which is not available in interpreting a statute and, therefore, it will be useful
at this stage to reproduce what Lord Diplock said in Duport Steels Ltd v. Sirs p
(1980) I ALL ER 529, at p. 542:

"It endangers continued public confidence in the political

- impartiality of the judiciary, which is essential to the continuance of
the rule of law, if Judges, under the guise of interpretation, provide
their own preferred amendments to statutes which experience of their G
operation has shown to have had consequences that members of the
court before whom the matter comes consider to be injurious to public
interest."

Where, therefore, the "language" is clear, the intention of the legislature H
\ \
"
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A is to be gathered from the language used. What is to be borne in mind is as
to what has been said in the statute as also what has not been said. A
construction which requires, for its support, addition or substitution of words
or which results in rejection of words, has to be avoided, unless it is covered
by the rule of exception, including that of necessity, which is not the case
B here. (See: Gwalior Rayons Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd v. Custodian of Vested
Forests, AIR (1990) SC 1747 at p. 1752; Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna
Municipal Co1pn, AIR (1966) SC 1678 at p. 1682; A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas
Sriniwas Nayak, [ 1984] 2 SCC 500, at pp. 518, 519. Indeed, the Court cannot
reframe the legislation as it has no power to legislate. [See State of Kera/a
v. Mathai Verghese, (1986] 4 SCC 746, at p. 749 and Union of India v.
C Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, AIR (1992) SC 96 at p.101.

The decision in Dr. L.P. Agarwal (supra) is also of no assistance to the
appellant because the issues involved were whether in respect of tenure post
concept of superannuation is applicable and the consequences of premature
retirement. In that context direction was given for payment of arrears of
D salary etc. The issues were entirely different and, therefore, that decision has
no application.

The decision in R. Rajendran and Ors. etc. etc. (supra) revolves around
altogether different controversy. That related to doctrine of pleasure
E incorporated under Article 310. It was, inter alia, observed in the said case
that the power to abolish a civil post is inherent in the right to create it. The
Government has power subject, of course, to the constitutional provisions to
reorganize a department to provide efficiencies and to bring about economy.
It can abolish an office in good faith. It was further held in that case that the
abolition of the post of viliage officers was sought to be achieved by a pit:ce
F
-
of legislation passed by the State legislature. Want of good faith or modalities
cannot be attributed to a legislature. The only question to be considered was
whether the legislature is a colorable one lacking in legislative competence
or whether it transgresses any of the constitutional limitations. The plea that
there was violation of Article J 9(1 )(g) of the Constitution was negativeC: as
G the Act did not affect right of any of the. incumbent of the posts to carry on
any occupation of their choice, even though they may not be able to stick on
to the post which they were holding.

So far as Kai/ash Chand Mahajan and Ors. (supra) is concerned, there
was a specific provision regarding payment of compensation in the said case.
H That makes a great deal of difference.
J.P. BANSAL v, STATE [ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.) 945
The decision in State of A./3, and Ors. v. Bollapragada Surydharayana A
and Ors. (supra) does not in any Way assist the appellant and, in fact, is one
which goes against him. That case telated to abolition of posts by legislation.
In the said case also there was a provision for compensation specifically
indicated in Section 5 of the A.P. Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village
Officers Act, I985. As indicated in the tase of Kai/ash Chand Mahajan and B
Ors. (supra) clear stipulation in the Act makes a difference. There is no
specific provision for payment of compensation in the present case.

The relevant observations appeared at paragraph 5 of _the judgment in
Bollapragada's case reads as follows:
c
"It is contended by the State that the respondents are not entitled
to gratuity or the benefit of the Family Benefit Scheme because the
posts of part-time Village Officers have been abolished under the
said Act. The Gratuity Scheme under GOMs dated 18.4.1980 provides,
inter alia, for payment of gratuity to the Village Officer at the time D
of demittjng office. after attaining the age of 58 years after giving
notice to the appointing authority. Therefore, the Gratuity Scheme
expressly provides for the manner of demitting office on attaining the
age of 58 years, or 60 years, as the case may be. It is only when the
office is demitted in the manner set out in the Scheme that gratuity
under the said GOMs becomes payable. The office is required to be E
demitted by the holder concerned after giving a notice to the appointing
authority. This clearly contemplates a voluntary relinquishment of
office on attaining the specified age. There is no retirement age for
this office~ This provision would not apply when, by legislation, the
posts are abolished. In such a situation there is no question of voluntary F
demitting of office after notice. The provisions of the said GOMs,
therefore, cannot be attracted when the posts are abo\ished by
legislation. This is precisely the reason why under Section 5 of the
said Act, a provision for compensation has been made, which the
respondents have received."
G
One of the pleas of the appellant was with reference to Section 4(b)
of the Ordinance, which reads as under:

"4. Savings - The repeal made under Section 3 shall not affect -

(a) the previous operation of the Act so repealed or anything duly H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A done or suffered thereunder; or

(b) any obligation or liability accrued or incurred under the Act so
repealed; or

xxx xxx xxx"
B
The said provision also does not in any way assist the appellant because
there is no obligaiion or liability accrued or incurred under the repealed Act
to pay compensation. There was no· obligation or liability fixed under the Act
for payment of compensation.
c The decision in Sri Justice SK. Ray v. State of Orissa and Ors., JT
(2003) 1 SC 166 is also distinguishable on facts. In that case under the
scheme of the enactment under which the appellant was appointed, there was
a bar on the appointee to hold any office of trust or profit and also there was
bar on his acting as a member of the legislature, Central or State or aay other
D position which may come in conflict with the office of Lokpal. There was
provision also that he cannot hold any office everi after he ceases to hold the
office of Lokpal. There were these disabilities attached to him for all time to
come after ceasing to hold office. In the instant case there is no such provision,
and on the contrary in the Ordinance Section 6 provides as follows:
E "6. FURTHER EMPLOYMENT OF.CHAIRMAN AND MEMBER,
- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (7) of Sectio11 3
of the repealed Act, the Chairman or any other member of the Tribunal
shall not be ineligible for further employment under the State

F
Government or under any local authority or under any corporation
owned or controlled by the State Government." -
What remains to be considered is the plea of legitimate expectation.
The principle of 'legitimate expectation' is still at a stage of evolution as
pointed out in De Smith Administrative Law (5th Edn. Para 8.038). The
G principle is at the root of the rule of law and requires regularity, predictability
and certainty in governments' dealings with the public. Adverting to the
basis of legitimate expectation its procedural and substantive aspects, Lord
Steyn in Pierson v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1997) 3 All
ER 577, at p.606)(HL) goes back to Dicey's description of the rule of law
in his "Introduction to the study of tbe Law of the Constitution" (I 0th Edn.
H 1968 p.203) as containing principles of enduring value in the work of a great
J.P. BANSAL v. STA TE [ARIJIT PASA YAT, J.] 947
jurist. Dicey said that the constitutional rights have roots in the common law. A
He said:

"The 'rule of law', lastly, may be used as a formula for expressing
the fact that with us, the law of constitution, the rules which in foreign
countries naturally form pait of a constitutional code, are not the
source but the consequence of the rights of individuals, as defined B
and enforced by the courts; that, in short, the principles of private law
have with us been by the action of the courts and Parliament so
extended as to determine the position of the Crown and its servants;
thus the Constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land".

This, says Lord Steyn, is the pivot of Dicey's discussion of rights to personal
c
freedom and to freedom of association and of public meeting and that it is
clear that Dicey regards the rule of law .as having both procedural and
substantive effects. "The rule of law enforces minimum standards of fairness,
both substantive and procedural". On the facts in Pierson, the majority held
that the Secretary of State could not have maintained a higher tariff of sentence D
that recommended by the judiciary when admittedly no aggravating
circumstances existed. The State could not also increase the tariff with
retrospective effect.

The basic principles in this branch relating to 'legitimate expectation' E
were enunciated by Lord Oiplock in Council of Civil Service Unions and
Ors. v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) AC 374 (408-409) (Commonly
known as CCSU case). It was observed in that case that for a legitimate
-~
expectation to arise, the decisions of the administrative authority must affect
the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he
had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he F
can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been
communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he
1 has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance
from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him
• first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not G
--!
be withdrawn. The procedural part of it relates to a representation that a
hearing or other appropriate procedure will be afforded before the decision
is made. The substantive part of the principle is that if a representation is
made that a benefit of a substantive nature will be granted or if the person
is a~reaqy in receipt of the benefit that it will be continued and not be ·
subitantially varied, then the same could be enforced. In the above case, Lord H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) 2 S. C.R.

A Fraser accepted that the civil servarrts had a legitimate expectatio:i that they
would be consulted before their trade union membership was withdrawn
because prior consultation in the past was the standard practice whenever
conditions of service were significantly altered. Lord Diplock went a little
further, when he said that they had a legitimate expectation that t~ey would
B continue to enjoy the benefits of the trade union membership, the interest in
regard to which was protectable. An expectation could be based on an express
promise or representation or by established past action or settled conduct.
The representation must be clear and unambiguous. It could be a representation
to the individual or generally to class of persons.

C Even so, it has been held under English law that the decision maker's
freedom to change the policy in public interest, cannot be fettered by the
application of the principle of substantive legitimate expectation. Observations
in earlier cases project a more inflexible rule than is in vogue presently. In
R. v. /RC, exp Preston (1985 AC 835) the House of Lords rejected the plea
that the altered policy relating to parole for certain categories of prisoners
D required prior consultation with the prisoner, Lord Scarman observed:

"But what was their legitimate expectation. Given the substance
and purpos~ of the legislative provisions governing parole, the most
that a convicted prisqner can legitimately expect is that his case be
E examined individually 'i'ri the light of whatever policy the Secretary of
State sees fit to adopt provided always that the adopted policy is a
lawful exercise of the discretion conferred upon him by the statute.
Any other view would entail the conclusion that the unfettered
discretion conferred by statute upon the minister can in some cases
by restricted so as to hamper or even to prevent changes of policy."
F
To a like effect are the ob;;ervations of Lord Diplock in Hughes v.
,,_
Department of Health and Social Security (HL) 1985 AC 776 (788):
I
I
"Administrative policies may change with changing circumstances,
including changes in the political complexion of governments. The •
G liberty to make such changes is something that is inherent in our
\)

constitutional form of government."

Before we do so, we shall refer to some of the important decisions of
this Court to find out the extent to which the principle of substantive legitimate
H expectation is accepted in our country. In Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing
J.P. BANSAL v. STATE [AR!JIT PASAYAT, J.] 949
Society v. Union of India, [ 1992] 4 sec 4 77, the principle of procedural A
fairness was applied. In that case the seniority as per the existence list of co-
operative housing societies for allotment of land was altered by subsequent
decision. The previous policy was that the seniority amongst housing societies
in regard to allotment of land was to be based on the date of registration of
the society with the Registrar. But on 20.1.1990, the policy was changed by
reckoning seniority as based upon the date of approval of the final list by the B
Registrar. This altered the existing seniority of the societies for allotment of
land. This Court held that the societies were entitled to a 'legitimate
expectation' that the past consistent practice in the matter of allotment will
be followed even if there was no right in private law for such allotment. The
authority was not entitled to defeat the legitimate expectation of the societies C
as per the previous seniority list without some overriding reason of public
policy as to justify change in the criterion. No such overriding public interest
was shown. According to the principle of 'legitimate expectation', if the
authority proposed to defeat a person's legitimate expectation, it should afford
him an opportunity to make a representation in the matter. Reference was
made to Halsbury's Laws of England (p.151, Vol.I (I) (4th Ed. re-issue) and D
to the CCSU case. It was held that the doctrine imposed, in essence, a duty
on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant
factors, relating to such legitimate expectation. Within the contours of fair
dealing, the reasonable opportunity to make representation against change of
policy came in. E
Lastly we come to the three-judge Bench judgment in National Building
Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors., [I 998] 7 SCC 66.
This case has more relevance to the present case, as it was also a service
matter. The respondents were appointed in CPWD and they went on deputation
to the NBCC in Iraq and they opted to draw, while on deputation, their grade F
pay in CPWD plus deputation allowance. Besides that, the NBCC granted
them Foreign Allowance at 125% of the basic pay. Meanwhile their Basic
Pay in CPWD was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986 on the recommendation of the 4th
Pay Commission. They contended that the above-said increase of 125% should
be given by NBCC on their revised scales. This was not accepted by NBCC G
by orders dated 15.10.1990. The contention of the respondents based on
·legitimate expectation was rejected in view of the peculiar conditions under
which NBCC was working in Iraq. It was observed that the doctrine of
'legitimate expectation' had both substantive and procedural aspects. This
Court laid down a clear principle that claims on legitimate expectation required
H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A reliance on representation and resultant detriment in_ the same way as claims -~-..
based on promissory estoppel. The principle was developed in the context of
'reasonableness' and in the context of 'natural justice'.

The principles of legitimate expectation have no application to the facts
of the present case.
B
Looking at from any angle the appeal is devoid of any merit and
deserves dismissal, which we direct.

K.K.T. Appeal di5missed.