Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Vinaya L. Pai, filed a writ petition in October 1991 before the Bombay High Court. She was initially appointed as a part-time demonstrator in Biology on 01.07.1968, later became a full-time demonstrator from 01.07.1970 to 30.06.1975, upgraded to full-time lecturer on 01.07.1975, worked as a teacher in Junior College from 14.06.1976 to 31.07.1979, and then as a full-time lecturer in Zoology from 01.08.1979 to 09.10.1991. The only surviving prayer after three amendments was to direct the respondents to give effect to the Government Resolution dated 15.05.2000 from its inception and pay the difference in salary and benefits amounting to Rs.3,79,708.60 with interest at 15% per annum calculated at Rs.4,30,827/- up to date and costs. The court heard the petitioner's counsel Ms. Betty D'souza and the Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Shekhar Ingavle. The court noted that the writ petition had been pending for 14 years and had been amended thrice. The court held that the Government Resolution dated 15.05.2000 was prospective and could not be given retrospective effect. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the claim for retrospective application.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Government Resolution - Retrospective Effect - Government Resolution dated 15.05.2000 - The petitioner sought retrospective application of a Government Resolution for salary revision from inception. The court held that the Government Resolution was prospective in nature and could not be applied retrospectively, especially after a delay of 14 years. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Government Resolution dated 15.05.2000 should be given retrospective effect from its inception and whether the petitioner is entitled to difference in salary and benefits with interest.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The court held that the Government Resolution dated 15.05.2000 was prospective and could not be applied retrospectively. The claim was also barred by delay and laches as the petition was filed in 1991 and the resolution was of 2000.
Law Points
- Government Resolution prospective unless expressly made retrospective
- Writ petition delay and laches
- No vested right in policy change
