SC Protects Employees From Retrospective Impact of Subsequent Service Rule Amendments

New Delhi, Aug 24 (KNN) The Supreme Court has held that subsequent amendments to service rules cannot retrospectively invalidate qualifications acquired by an employee under rules that were in force at the relevant time, particularly when the employee had no control over subsequent changes.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that amendments to government orders must be interpreted reasonably to avoid undue hardship to employees who had acted in accordance with the prevailing rules.

Background

The case concerned R.J. Gajendra Kumar, who joined the Tamil Nadu Tourism Department as a Junior Assistant in 1983 on compassionate grounds. The rules then allowed employees to pursue higher education through open or distance learning.

Kumar completed a foundation course in 1984 and a B.Com through distance education in 1987, qualifications later recognised by the government, including through a 2000 order equating distance degrees with regular ones.

He was promoted as Tourist Officer in 2011, with his service regularised from August 5, without his qualification or promotion being challenged. However, his 2020 claim for promotion as Assistant Director of Tourism was rejected under subsequent rules requiring a 10+2+3 educational pattern.

The Madras High Court's Single Bench initially ruled in his favour, but its Division Bench reversed the decision, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.

Rules Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively

Setting aside the Division Bench order, the Supreme Court held that Kumar had acquired his qualifications when they were recognised under the applicable rules and could not subsequently be rendered ineligible by later amendments or clarifications.

The court noted that the relevant government order had remained in force for more than two decades before being reversed and said employees who obtained qualifications during that period could not be disadvantaged by later changes.

It also relied on earlier Supreme Court rulings, including P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, which held that amended rules should be interpreted reasonably to avoid hardship to persons who have no control over the subject matter.

The court reiterated that service rules are generally prospective unless they expressly or necessarily have retrospective effect. Since the amended rules did not provide for retrospective application, applying them to Kumar would cause undue hardship.

The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and held that Kumar was eligible to be considered for promotion as Assistant Director of Tourism.

(KNN Bureau)