Madhya Pradesh High Court: Right Already Accrued Cannot Be Taken Away By Way Of Subsequent Amendment With No Retrospective Effect

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that right already accrued cannot be taken away by way of subsequent amendment or clarification which has no retrospective effect.

The Court was considering Writ Petitions against order whereby the State had withdrawn the Academic Grade Pay benefits granted to the Petitioners.

The single bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi observed, "In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, in my opinion as per the settled principle of law, right already accrued in favour of the petitioners cannot be taken away by way of subsequent amendment or clarification which has no retrospective effect."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Praveen Verma while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate Girish Kekre.

Facts of the Case

The issue involved was as to whether the benefit already granted under the AICTE Regulation by the Respondent/ State Authority can be withdrawn pursuant to the subsequent regulation of AICTE or not.

Counsel for the Petitioners assailed the order whereby the Principal withdrew the benefits granted to the Petitioners whereby they have been granted the benefit of A.G.P. after completion of six years of service and as such, they became entitled to get ₹6,000/- as AGP and pay fixation was made accordingly. He submitted that the benefit which had been granted to the Petitioners was withdrawn pursuant to the subsequent notification dated January 04, 2016 and clarification in earlier notification dated March 05, 2010 cannot be made effective retrospectively but it should be made effective prospectively and as such, the right accrued in favour of Petitioners pursuant to the earlier notification and cannot be taken away by way of subsequent clarification.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the question of law that emerges for its adjudication was as to whether the date of accrual of right in favour of an employee is material or date of maturity of right is material.

The Court referred to Supreme Court's ruling in Gelus Ram Sahu and others vs. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh and others wherein the Court had considered the notification of 2010 and notification of 2016 and observed that in its terms, notification of 2016 cannot be made effective retrospectively and that would not affect the appointments already made prior to notification of 2016.

"In the present case, right accrued in favour of petitioners by way of notification dated 05.03.2010 and benefits were already granted to them vide order dated 01.07.2017, therefore, the same cannot be taken away vide order dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure P/10). The subsequent orders passed by the authorities approving the order dated 11.09.2017 is also not proper," the Court observed.

The Petitions were accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Santosh Bhalave vs. State of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Click here to read/ download Order