SUDHA THEJUS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in this original petition are maintaining Post Office Recurring Deposits. These deposits are governed by the Post Office Recurring Deposit Rules, 1981, (here-in-after referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioners opened their accounts on different dates. As per 9A of the Rules, as it stood at the time of opening of the accounts, the holder of an account may prematurely close the account after one year from the date of opening of the account provided that interest at the rate applicable from time to time to the Post Office Savings Account shall be payable on such premature closure of an account. Government of India amended R.9A by Ext. P11 Notification dated 4-11-1999. By the above amendment, no premature closure of account is permissible until the period for which the advanced deposits made is over. On the basis of the , amended R.9A of the Rules, the petitioners were denied the benefit of premature closing. Therefore the petitioners have filed this original petition challenging the. amended R.9A of the Rules to the extent of denying the benefit of premature closing of the Recurring Deposits. The main argument of the petitioners is that the amendment to R.9A of the Rules must be prospective and cannot affect the deposits made by the petitioners before the date of amendment. This according to the petitioners takes away the vested rights of the petitioners for premature closure of the account.

(2.) The answer of the respondents to this contention is that Ext. P11 amendment is retrospective in operation and therefore applies equally to the deposits made earlier than the amendment. Respondents have also produced Ext.R2(a) communication from the Ministry of Finance for holding that the amendments are applicable to Recurring Deposit Accounts which were already in existence on 4-11-1999. This view was expressed in consultation with the Ministry of Law. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel also relied on Ext.R2(b) wherein the petitioners have agreed that they would abide by the Rules framed by the Central Government as may be applicable to the account from time to time. Thus according to the respondents, apart from the rule being retrospective, the petitioners have expressly agreed to abide by the amendment of the Rules from time to time. Therefore, they cannot now contend that the amended Rules are not applicable to them. It was further argued before me that this is a contractual right and no vested right flows from the action of the petitioners in depositing the amount with the post office.

(3.) The rule making power of the Government for making the Rules is contained in S.15 of the Government Savings Bank Act, 1873. It cannot be disputed that the above section does not give the Government power to make Rules retrospectively. Ext. P11 amendment also does not say that the Rules have been made with retrospective effect. The principles with regard to retrospective law are quite clear. The retrospectively cannot be presumed by implied reasoning. It must be explicit. In this case, neither the Act nor the rules make the Rules framed by the Rule making authority retrospective. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that Ext. P11 Rules cannot be made retrospective so as to affect the rights of the petitioners who deposited the amounts earlier than the promulgation of Ext. P11 Rules.