Judgment

ALAGIRISWAMI, J.: - The appellant was appointed as Airport Ticket Clerk in the Civil Aviation Department of the Government of India on 14-8-1967. On 15-6-1971 his services were terminated forthwith and it was directed that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of pay and allowances for a period of one month (in lieu of the period of notice) calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the date on which the order was served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him. But the pay and allowances were not paid to him at the same time as the service of the order of termination of his services. His appeal against the termination as well as representations having failed he filed a writ petition out of which this appeal arises. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petition in limine and this appeal has been filed in pursuance of a certificate granted by the High Court because of the decision of this Court in R. M. S. Cochin v. K. V. Gopinath, reported in (1972) 3 SCR 530, of which that Court was not aware when it dismissed the petitioner s petition.

2. It was not brought to the notice of the High Court that the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules l965 had been amended with retrospective effect from 1st May, 1965. The rule as now amended reads:

"5. Termination of temporary service -

(1) (a) The services of temporary Government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant;

(b) The period of such notice shall be one month :

Provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of the services or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short of one month."

The effect of this amendment is that on 1st May 1965 as also on 15-6-1971, the date on which the appellant s services were terminated forthwith it was not obligatory to pay to him a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for the period of the notice at the rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of the services or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short. The Government servant concerned is only entitled to claim the sums hereinbefore mentioned. Its effect is that the decision of this Court in Gopinath s case (1972) 3 SCR 530 = 1972 Lab IC 826) (supra) is no longer good law. There is no doubt that this rule is a valid rule because it is now well established that rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are legislative in character and therefore can be given effect to retrospectively. It follows that the decision of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appellant s writ petition is correct and this appeal will have to be dismissed.

3. But it was argued by Mr. Bhandare appearing on behalf of the appellant that there is no validating provision in the rule as now amended and therefore the intention of the Government in making the amendment cannot be validly given effect to. For this purpose he relied upon the decision of this Court in Prithvi Mills v. Broach Municipality, 1970 (l) SCR 388 and in particular the following observations therein :

"Sometimes this is done by re-enacting retrospectively a valid and legal taxing provision and then by fiction making the tax already collected to stand under the re-enacted law. Sometimes the legislature gives its own meaning and interpretation of the law under which the tax was collected and by legislative fiat makes the new meaning binding upon courts. The legislature may follow an