J P BANSAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant's prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus to the State of Rajasthan to pay compensation on cessation of functioning as Chairman of the abolished Rajasthan Taxation and Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') having been turned down by learned single Judge and Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, this appeal has been preferred. As the core question involved is pristinely legal, it is unnecessary to enter into the factual aspects in detail.

(2.) Factual panorama in a nutshell is as follows :

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant primarily took three stands in support of the appeal. Firstly, it was submitted that the decision of the Cabinet was enforceable. In the meeting of the Cabinet four decisions were taken. They related to : (1) Promulgation of Ordinance, (2) repatriation of the Technical Member to his parent department, (3) absorption of the members of the staff and (4) payment of compensation to the appellant. While the first three decisions were implemented; only the last one relating to payment of compensation was not implemented. The stand taken by the State Government cannot partake the character of Government order under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') is not tenable. Secondly, Clause (2) of Article 310 of the Constitution deals with payment of compensation on premature cessation of a tenure appointment on the basis of contract to that effect. Even though there was no contractual prescription for payment of compensation, that has to be taken as inbuilt requirement in the spirit of Clause (2) of Article 310. There has to be interpretation of the provisions for giving effect to constitutional mandates. The decision taken by the Cabinet was in line with the said provision and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in refusing the grant of compensation. Finally, since there has been violation of the legitimate expectation of the appellant to continue till the end of tenure period, by application of the principle of legitimate expectation the State Government was bound to pay compensation irrespective of whether there was any Cabinet decision earlier or not and that would not take any difference. Section 4(b) of the Ordinance also has relevance in that context. Any obligation or liability accrued or incurred under the Act repealed are not be affected by the repeal.