State Language Teachers’ Association Rep. by its State General Secretary, Palla Sathaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Legislative Affairs and Justice, Hyderabad

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(AP) 308

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA
State Language Teachers’ Association Rep. by its State General Secretary, Palla Sathaiah & Others
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Legislative Affairs and Justice, Hyderabad & Others
WRIT PETITION Nos. 21457 of 2004 & Batch
Date of Judgment : 16-04-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Sri M.R.K. Chowdhary, E. Manohar Senior Counsel, M. Sudhir Kumar, K. Ram Mohan Mahadeva, C. Sai Krishna, M. Srikanth, K. Umapathy, & G. Seena Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents:D.V. Sitarama Murthy, Advocate General, Additional Advocate General G.P. for Education & G.P. for School Education for the Official.

Headnote:A) A.P. LANGUAGE PANDITS GRADE-II (REGULATION OF SCALE OF PAY) ACT, 2004 (A.P. Act No.1 of 2005):- The Act passed denying the benefit of Automatic Advance Scheme to the Language pundits who worked in Grade II even though holding all requisite qualifications of holders of Grade I is constitutional and within the legislative competence of the State Legislature since it is traceable to Articles 14,16 (2), Proviso to Article 309 and Entry 41 of List Ii of Seventh Schedule to Constitution of India.But having regard to past litigation and having realized that executive order forms the basis for perpetuation of unconstitutional claims of rights, the State Legislature can always pass an Act declaring the service conditions in relation to a particular public service under the State.(As per Majority view)
       B) A.P. LANGUAGE P ANDITS GRADE-II (REGULATYION OF SCALE OF PAY) ACT, 2004 (A.P. ACT No.1 of 2005), Section 3 Validity - A.P. Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1962:- The validity of the section so far as it excludes the language pundits from claiming pay scale of Grade I even though working in Grade II, on the ground that they are having qualifications of Grade I is held valid and constitutional. The Legislature is competent to pass a validating legislature to clear an anomaly created out of an executive order. In P.C.S. Naidu (2003 (6) ALT 693 (D.B.)) the High Court set aside the cutoff date imposed for giving the benefit of pay scales to language pundits working Grade II post when they have qualifications prescribed for Grade I. The impugned section only takes away the basis which is created by G.O.s.No:330 and hence such a validating Act is constitutional. (As per Majority view)
       C) A.P. LANGUAGE P ANDITS GRADE-II (REGULATION OF SCALE OF PAY) ACT, 2004, Section 4:- Though Section takes away the claim of Language pundits working in Grade II post to get pay scales of Grade I witgh a retrospective declaration, but it is silent on the question of recovering the amount already paid under the earlier interpretation and hence recovery of such amount is accordingly barred on equity grounds.
       D) STATUTORY LAW - The Legislature can not pass any Act invalidating any judicial decision, but certainly it can take away any condition or facts on the basis of which a judicial decision is passed. Where it is competent to pass a legislation, but certain other technical restrictions are placed on it by judicial decisions, the same can be rectified and validated by legislature.
       E) STATUTORY LAW –(Minority View ):- Though legislatures are competent to take away a condition or fact on the basis of which an earlier judicial decision is passed, it shall not be allowed to take away the benefits accrued to some parties under such a verdict with retrospective effect especially where the earlier decision have conferred a financial benefit to them.

45. The checks and balances always to be kept in mind for the healthy functioning of the public institutions. Judicial verdict cannot be defeated especially by an express Retrospective Legislative Device on the simple ground that if such judicial verdict to be honoured, the public exchequer would be over-burdened financially.

46. Whether the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute can be stretched to such an extent of giving judicial approval to the present Legislative action thought of so as to annul the judicial verdict in Retrospective, in the considered opinion of this Court the Retrospectivity cannot be given the judicial approval in the light of the clear Legal position in this regard. On this ground alone, as to the operation specified in the Ordinance and the Act aforesaid cannot be justified.

47. “Legislative Activism” invoked so as to annul the available, accrued, vested rights by virtue of a Judgment, with Retrospectivity, that too, normally be not to be approved. “Legislative wisdom” to be well vigilant while resorting to Legislation, not to encroach upon the arena of the “Judicial Wing”. The clear “Defined Limitations” of the “Three Wings” to be observed in letter and spirit.

48. While appreciating and following the precedents, the questions in controversy in the present case and the precedents wherein similar or akin questions had fallen for consideration and answered with reasons may have to be followed. The decisions of the Constitutional Benches and the Larger Benches to be followed in preference to the Division Bench decisions, the directness of the point decided in a particular given case and the background facts also may have to be considered.

49. In this context P.Chandra Shekhar Naidu’s case (referred 3 above); P.Tulasi Das’s case (referred 4 supra); Madan Mohan Pathak Ram Prakash Manchanda’s case (referred 1 supra); President of India’s case (referred 2 supra) and S.R.Bhagwat’s case (referred 5 supra) may be specifically referred to and it is needless to say that in the light of the same, the said decisions to be followed on careful examination of the factual matrix and also the ratio laid down in the said decisions in preference to PROCESS TECHNICIANS AND ANALYSTS UNION V. UNION OF INDIA (1997 (10) SCC 142); UNION OF INDIA v. CYNAMIDE INDIA LIMITED (1987 (2) SCC 720) and several other decisions strongly relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General specified supra. As already aforesaid, the Precedent Law to be applied to a particular given case in the light of the facts and circumstances of such given case.

50. In Madan Mohan Pathak Ram Prakash Manchanda’s case (referred 1 supra) it was held:-

“It is significant to note that there was no reference to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the Statement of Objects and Reasons, nor any non obstante clause referring to a judgment of a court in Sec. 3 of the impugned Act. The attention of Parliament does not appear to have been drawn to the fact that the Calcutta High Court had already issued a writ of Mandamus commanding the Life Insurance Corporation to pay the amount of bonus for the year 1st April, 1975 to 31st March, 1976. It appears that unfortunately the judgment of the Calcutta High Court remained almost unnoticed and the impugned Act was passed in ignorance of that judgment. Section 3 of the impugned Act provided that the provisions of the Settlement in so far as they relate to payment of annual cash bonus to Class III and Class IV employees shall not have any force or effect and shall not be deemed to have had any force or effect from 1st April, 1975. But the writ of Mandamus issued by the Calcutta High Court directing the Life Insurance Corporation to pay the amount of bonus for the year 1st April, 1975 to 31st March, 1976 remained untouched by the impugned Act. So far as the right of Class III and Class IV employees to annual cash bonus for the year 1st April, 1975 to 31st March, 1976 was concerned, it became crys

Click Here to Read the rest of this document