Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against a judgment of the Patna High Court, which ordered the Accountant General of Bihar to pay passage allowances due to the respondent, N. Bakshi, a member of the Indian Civil Service. Bakshi was admitted to the Indian Civil Service in 1924 and continued to serve in Bihar post-independence. He inquired about his passage entitlements under the Superior Civil Services (Revision of Pay and Pension) Rules, 1924, and was informed of the amounts credited to him and his family. However, in 1956, the Government of India decided to cease these benefits, leading Bakshi to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus to compel payment. The High Court granted the petition, prompting the appeal. The Supreme Court examined the statutory rules and amendments over the years, concluding that the right to passage benefits was part of the remuneration guaranteed by the Constitution. The court held that the Central Government's attempt to cancel these benefits through the 1957 rules was ultra vires, affirming the High Court's decision. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Statutory Rights - Passage Benefits - All India Services (Overseas Pay, Passage and Leave Salary) Rules, 1957 - The right to passage benefits was a part of the remuneration earned by members of the Indian Civil Service, guaranteed by Article 314 of the Constitution. The Central Government could not cancel this constitutional guarantee through rule-making powers. Held that the rule was ultra vires (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether clause 3 of the All India Services (Overseas Pay, Passage and Leave Salary) Rules, 1957, was competently enacted in light of constitutional guarantees.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order to pay the passage allowances. The court held that the right to passage benefits was part of the remuneration guaranteed by Article 314 of the Constitution, and the Central Government could not cancel this guarantee through rule-making powers.
Law Points
- Constitutional guarantees
- remuneration
- statutory rights
- passage benefits
- rule-making power
