MANAGING DIRECTOR THE TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD MADRAS Vs. TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD TECHNICAL STAFF ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 11. 3. 1988 made in W. P. No. 7753 of 1984, whereunder the writ petition filed by the first respondent before us came to be allowed on the ground that the amended regulation in question cannot be made with retrospective effect.

(2.) THE 1st respondent/association has filed W. P. No. 7753 of 1984 praying for a declaration that explanation III to Regulation No. 23 of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Regulations, 1972 (hereinafter called as Regulation) as illegal, ultra vires and consequently directing the respondents in the writ petition to consider all the Assistant Draughtsmen (Non-Diploma), who have completed 5 years of service for promotion to the post of Draughtsmen Grade III (Junior Drafting Officer) in the Tamil Nadu Water and drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board ). THE relevant and necessary factual details set out hereinafter are beyond controversy. THE Tamil nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board was incorporated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1970 (Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1971) with effect from 14. 4. 1971. Sec. 9 of the Act enables the Board to appoint the Secretary, Chief Engineer, Accounts Officer and other Officers and Staff of the Board, subject to the stipulations contained therein. Sec. 73 empowers the board to make regulation, by notification not inconsistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the act and more particularly, among other things, providing for the terms and conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Board including the payment of travelling and daily allowances in respect of journeys undertaken by such officers and servants of the Board as well as the supervision and control over the Acts and proceedings of the officers and servants of the Board and the maintenance of discipline and conduct among the officers and servants of the Board. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 73 provided that no regulation or its cancellation or modification shall have effect until the same shall have been approved by the Government.

(3.) THAT apart, it has to be considered as to whether the ex. III in so far as it lays down for Promotion of an Assistant Draughtsman to the next immediate Post of Draughtsman Grade III specifying the relevant date to be 13. 12. 1972, can be said to be retrospective in operation. The Explanation iii added, merely states that the Assistant Draughtsman, who possessed merely the certificate qualification and entered into service as such on or before 13. 12. 1972 (on which date the Original Regulations came into force) and who have put in not less than five years of service shall be considered for promotion and that such persons shall not be entitled to any further promotion unless he gets himself qualified for such post. In the decision reported in J. & K. State v. T. N,. Khosa, A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 1: 1974 Lab. I. C. 1: (1074)1 s. C. C. 19: (1974)1 Lab. L. J. 131: (1974)1 S. C. J. 336, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that it is wrong to characterise the operation of a service rule as retrospective for the reason that it applies to existing employees and that a rule which classifies such employees for promotional purposes operates, undoubtedly, on those who entered service before the framing of the rule but it operates in future in the sense that it governs the future right of promotion of those who are already in service. So far as the impugned regulation is concerned, it operates only in future though it governed the future right of promotion of such of those Assistant Draughtsmen, who entered in the service of the Board on or before 13. 12. 1972. To the same effect is the decision of another decision of the Apex Court, wherein it has been held that when a statutory Rule governing seniority is issued in respect of a service, the said rule would govern all the personnel in service with effect from the date of its promulgation and in so giving effect to the rule in future, there is no element of retroactivity - involved. It has been further held therein that though the rules will not operate to deprive any person of promotions already earned in the post, but for purposes of future promotions and seniority in the Department the principles laid down in the rule will necessarily govern all persons in service-vide j. Kumar v. Union of India, A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 1064: (1982)1 S. C. C. 116. Consequently, there is no merit in the attack on the ground of alleged retrospectivity of the amendment and we are unable to subscribe our concurrence to the view of the learned single Judge in this regard. Therefore, the ground on which the writ petition was allowed to the extent of retrospectivity no longer survives and the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. As a matter of fact, the learned single Judge specifically holds in paragraph 10 of the judgment under appeal before us that the impugned regulation is struck down only relating to its retrospective applicability and in other respects, it will be valid prospective, on and from the date of its notification.