1. Dispute over retrospective bifurcation of a combined cadre of Junior Engineers into graduate and non-graduate divisions and the resulting classification and pay scales. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 251
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh, B.L. Hansaria and S.B. Majumdar, JJ.
Civil Appeals Nos.7629-30 of 1994
Decided on 20.2.1995
Ravindranath Pai
Versus
State of Karnataka
Important Points
Retrospective bifurcation of a common cadre into separate categories is invalid if it violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16(1) or contradicts invalidated retrospective pay scale revisions. Such reclassification must operate prospectively from the date the government order introducing the bifurcation was issued.
Subject
Administrative Law - Retrospective Legislation
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.16(1), Art.309, Art.14
KARNATAKA STATE CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION AND SCALE OF PAY OF NON GRADUATE JUNIOR ENGINEERS OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ACT: S.2
KARNATAKA STATE CIVIL SERVICES RECRUITMENT RULES: R.1
KARNATAKA STATE CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION AND SCALE OF PAY OF NON GRADUATE JUNIOR ENGINEERS OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ACT: S.2
KARNATAKA STATE CIVIL SERVICES RECRUITMENT RULES: R.1
Headnote
Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1975 - Section 2 - Section (2)(l)(ii) - Section 2(l)(i) – Constitution Of India - Article 309 - Engineering - Diploma Holders Appointed As Supervisors - Appellants were initially diploma holders in engineering - They were recruited as Supervisors in Public Works Department of Karnataka - Later, appellant No.l acquired degree in civil engineering and appellant No.2 acquired graduation in engineering - At time of their recruitment, relevant recruitment rules envisaged that only degree holders were entitled to be appointed as Junior Engineers, whereas diploma holders could be appointed as Supervisors - In 1969 this position was changed and both cadres of Junior Engineers and Supervisors were merged into one cadre of Junior Engineers - This was followed by an order of Karnataka State extending identical pay scales with retrospective effect to both graduate and diploma holder Junior Engineers – Held, Posts of non-graduate Junior Engineers were declared to have existed with retrospective effect - By sub-section (2)(l)(ii) of Act it was provided that scales of pay admissible to such non-graduate Junior Engineers were to be only those specified for such category of posts and not those admissible to category of Junior Engineer graduates - Appellants as belonging to bifurcated cadre of Junior Engineers (Division-I) from as claimed by them - Appellants are therefore entitled to a partial relief to following extent - Respondent authorities are directed to treat appellants as belonging to cadre of Junior Engineers (Division-I) (Assistant Engineer, as now designated) with effect and fix salary of appellants in scale applicable to Assistant Engineers with effect from that date and also to give appellants all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, ranking and seniority in cadre of Assistant Engineer on that basis - Common judgment and order of Tribunal shall stand set aside and substituted by present - Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants sought classification as graduate Junior Engineers from the date of acquiring degrees; respondents contended retrospective cadre bifurcation remained valid despite invalidation of retrospective pay scales. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Retrospective cadre bifurcation cannot survive independently of retrospective pay scales; such retrospective action violating fundamental rights of equality is discriminatory and legally unsustainable. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Retrospective legislation cannot violate fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16(1) or destroy vested rights by making equals unequal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
5. Appellants directed to be treated as graduate Junior Engineers from the date of cadre bifurcation with all consequential benefits and salary arrears. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. Can the legislature enact laws with retrospective effect?
Yes, the legislature is competent to legislate retrospectively to impair vested rights, but such laws must conform to the Constitution and cannot contravene Fundamental Rights. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. What is the effect of retrospective legislation on fundamental rights?
Retrospective laws cannot be used to destroy fundamental rights or make individuals who are currently equals unequal by referencing a past situation. (Para 13 )
8. Can a cadre be bifurcated retrospectively if the associated pay scale changes are invalid?
No, retrospective bifurcation of a common cadre cannot survive independently of separate pay scales; if retrospective pay scales are invalid, the retrospective cadre bifurcation is also unsustainable. (Para 10 , 11 )
9. What is the limitation on the rule-making authority regarding retrospectivity?
While statutes may permit retrospective rules, such exercise of power must not operate discriminately or violate constitutional rights to affect vested rights. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT
S.B. Majumdar, J.-These two civil appeals by special leave seek to challenge a common order dated 30.1.1988 of the Administrative Tribunal, Karnataka in Application Nos.4814 and 4815 of 1986 moved by the present two appellants. The Tribunal has dismissed these applications.
2. A few introductory facts to highlight the common grievance of the appellants may be noted at the outset. The appellants were initially diploma holders in engineering. They were recruited as Supervisors in the years 1960 and 1961 in the Public Works Department of Karnataka State. Later, appellant No.l acquired degree in civil engineering in 1967 and appellant No.2 acquired graduation in engineering in 1970. At the time of their recruitment, relevant recruitment rules envisaged that only degree holders were entitled to be appointed as Junior Engineers, whereas diploma holders could be appointed as Supervisors. In 1969 this position was changed and both the cadres of Junior Engineers and Supervisors were merged into one cadre of Junior Engineers. This was followed by an order of the Karnataka State in 1971 extending identical pay scales with retrospective effect from 1.1.1957 to both graduate and diploma holder Junior Engineers. The Karnataka State by another order dated 9.1.1974 sought to bifurcate the-service into two cadres, namely, Junior Engineer (Division I) and Junior Engineer (Division II). The former cadre was to comprise of degree holders and the later of diploma holders. This bifurcation of cadres was sought to be given retrospective effect from 3.7.1969. This retrospective bifurcation was sought to be supported by an enactment called the Karnataka State Civil Services (Classification and Scale of Pay of Non-graduate Junior Engineers of the Public Works Department) Act, 1975 being Act 9 of 1975. The Act provided for classification and scale of pay admissible to non-graduate Junior Engineers of the Public Works Department of the State of Karnataka. By Section 2 of the said Act, the posts of non-graduate Junior Engineers were declared to have existed with retrospective effect from 1st November, 1956. By sub-section (2)(l)(ii) of the said Act it was provided that the scales of pay admissible to such non-graduate Junior Engineers were to be only those specified for such category of posts and not those admissible to category of Junior Engineer graduates. These scales were also given retrospective effect from 1.11.1956.
3. The aforesaid bifurcation of cadres was brought in challenge in Karnataka High Court by writ petition No.3182 of 1973. During the pendency of the writ petition Karnataka Act 9 of 1975 came into force. The High Court by its decision dated 1.9.1981 took the view that bifurcation of the combined cadre of Junior Engineers which was holding the field from 1969 to 1974 could be operative from 9.1.1974 for the purpose of separate pay scales of graduate and non-graduate Junior Engineers. In so far as the Act sought to give retrospective effect to its operation for a period prior to 9.1.1974, it was regarded as invalid. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus was issued restraining the respondents from recovering any part of the salary received by the non-graduate Junior Engineers petitioners for any period prior to 9.1.1974 and a further mandamus was issued to pay the salary which accrued to them upto 9.1.1974, which had not been paid. The writ petitions were accordingly partly allowed.
4. It is thereafter that the appellants approached the Karnataka High Court by filing writ petitions for issuance of appropriate order against respondent authorities directing them to treat the appellants as Junior Engineers (Division-I) in the light of their existing qualification of graduation. The said direction was sought for appellant No.1 from 3.7.1969, on which date by Gazette notification a combined cadre Junior Engineers had come into operation, while a similar direction was sought for appellant No.2 from 1970, from the date on which he got graduation.
5
