Page 121 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] MANISH RISHISHWAR v. UNION OF INDIA 343

to one attempt under the 2018 regulations. In this respect also, a vested right has
been claimed by the petitioner.
7. Mr. Qadri, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reli-
ance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. v. C.R.
Rangadhamaiah and Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 623, Union of India v. Tushar Ranjan Mohan-
ty, (1994) 5 SCC 450 and J.S. Yadav v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 570. He relies up-
on paragraph No. 24 of Chairman, Railway Board (supra), which reads as follows :
“24. In many of these decisions the expressions “vested rights” or “ac-
crued rights” have been used while striking down the impugned provisions
which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse ef-
fect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc., of
the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a
right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with
effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available
under the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amend-
ment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a
benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbi-
trary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution. We are unable to hold that these decisions are
not in consonance with the decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon [AIR 1967 SC
1889 : (1968) 1 SCR 185 : (1968) 1 LLJ 576], B.S. Vedera [AIR 1969 SC 118 :
(1968) 3 SCR 575 : (1970) 1 LLJ 499] and Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni [(1983) 2
SCC 33 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 231 : (1983) 2 SCR 287]. ”
He further relies upon paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of Union of India and Ors. v.
Tushar Ranjan Mohanty (supra), which reads as follows :
“14. The legislatures and the competent authority under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India have the power to make laws with retrospective ef-
fect. This power, however, cannot be used to justify the arbitrary, illegal or
unconstitutional acts of the Executive. When a person is deprived of an ac-
crued right vested in him under a statute or under the Constitution and he
successfully challenges the same in the court of law, the legislature cannot
render the said right and the relief obtained nugatory by enacting retro-
spective legislation.
15. Respectfully following the law laid down by this Court in the judg-
ments referred to and quoted above, we are of the view that the retrospec-
tive operation of the amended Rule 13 cannot be sustained. We are satisfied
that the retrospective amendment of Rule 13 of the Rules takes away the
vested rights of Mohanty and other general category candidates senior to
Respondents 2 to 9. We, therefore, declare amended Rule 13 to the extent it
has been made operative retrospectively to be unreasonable, arbitrary and,
as such, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We
strike down the retrospective operation of the rule. In the view we have
taken on the point it is not necessary to deal with the other contentions
raised by Mohanty.”
He further relies upon paragraph Nos. 24, 25 and 26 of J.S. Yadav (supra), which
reads as follows :
“24. The legislature is competent to unilaterally alter the service condi-
tions of the employee and that can be done with retrospective effect also,
but the intention of the legislature to apply the amended provisions with
retrospective effect must be evident from the Amendment Act itself ex-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  121