Order
1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) 3464-3469 of 1993 (CC 19593 of 1993). Both disposed of by this common order.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant who was working as Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department was transferred on deputation to Bangalore City Corporation under City Bangalore (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulation, 1971 which permitted 75% of vacancies in the cadre to be filled in by deputation from PWD. In 1977 Karnataka Municipal Corporation Rules were framed under which the appellant was absorbed as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Corporation. Validity of these Rules and absorption of the appellant was assailed in the High Court by way of a writ petition which was allowed. The Rules were struck down and the absorption of the appellant in the Corporation was set aside. In 1981 the Government issued an Ordinance removing the infirmity in the rules. It was replaced by the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Amendment Act, 1981 (Act 40 of 1981), for short ‘the Act’.
Section 8 of the Act reads thus:
“8. Validation.— (1) The Karnataka Municipal Corporation Rules, 1977 made in Notification No. HMA/270.MNU-77 dated December 19, 1977 and published as GSR 390 in the Karnataka Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated December 22, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority or in the principal Act, be deemed to be as valid and effective for all purposes as if the said rules had been made under the principal Act as amended by this Act and accordingly,—
(a) all actions or things taken or done (including appointments and promotions made) under the said rules shall, for all purposes be deemed to be and to have always been taken or done in accordance with law;
(b) no,
(i) suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or continued in any court or tribunal or before any authority questioning the validity of any action or thing taken or done under the said rules; and
(ii) court shall recognise or enforce any decree or order declaring that the said rules or any action or thing taken or done thereunder as invalid,
on the ground that the rules were made without giving reasonable opportunity to persons likely to be affected by it to file their objections and suggestions.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority or in the principal Act, all appointments of Administrators made or continued before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been validly made for all purposes as if the said appointments had been made under the Principal Act as amended by this Act and accordingly all actions and things taken or done by or under the authority of the Administrators shall be and shall be deemed to have always been validly taken or done and no suit or other proceedings shall lie or be continued in any court of law or any other authority on the ground that at the time when such action or thing was taken or done the appointment or continuance of the Administrator was not authorised by law.”
Since the law had been amended and all actions taken including appointments and promotions were validated the appellant after coming into force of the Act, was promoted as Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer in 1981 and 1990 and Additional Chief Engineer respectively. In 1991 those persons who had challenged validity of appellant's appointment approached the High Court once again in contempt jurisdiction for non-implementation of the order passed in 1979. Faced with this situation the Government repatriated the appellant to his parent department, just a few months before his retirement. According to the appellant this affected him, prejudicially both in status and pensionary benefits. He, therefore, approached the Administrative Tribunal which being of opinion that since it could not examine the validity of orders in favour of appellant challenging his continuance which was pending in the High Court and the appellant was not going to suffer as he is bound to be paid pension either by the Corporation or the State Government, the petition had spent out its utility and, therefore, dismissed it as infructuous.
4. In Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality (1969) 2 SCC 283, (1970) 1 SCR 388 this Court held thus:
“When a Legislature sets out to validate a tax declared by a court to be illegally collected under an ineffective or an invalid law, the cause for ineffectiveness or invalidity must be removed before validation can be said to take place effectively. The most important condition, of course, is that the legislature must possess the power to impose the tax, for, if it does not, the action must ever remain ineffective and illegal. Granted legislative competence, it is not sufficient to declare merely that the decision of the court shall not bind for that is tantamount to reversing the decision in exercise of judicial power which the Legislature does not possess or exercise. A court's decision must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances …. If the Legislature has the power over the subject-matter and competence to make a valid law, it can at any time make such a valid law and make it retrospectively so as to bind even past transactions. The validity of a Validating Law, therefore, depends upon whether the legislature possesses the competence which it claims over the subject-matter and whether in making the validation it removes the defect which the courts had found in the existing law and makes adequate provisions in the Validating Law for a valid imposition of the tax.”
In the above case the Validation Act was upheld. The same view was reiterated in Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara v. Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. (1970) 1 SCC 509, (1970) 3 SCR 745 and Yadlapati Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P 1992 Supp (1) SCC 74, 1990 Supp (1) SCR 381
5. It is seen that under the Act the basis on which the 1977 Rules were declared void was removed and the appointments made or continued before the commencement of the Amendment Act were declared to be valid and shall always be deemed to have been validly made for all purposes as if the said appointments had been made in the Principal Act as amended by the Act. It is not in dispute that the State legislature is competent to make the Act. When the Act was made and validated past acts done or proceedings taken, it was a valid Act and removed the defects declared by the court. It must be deemed and shall always been deemed that the appointment of the appellant as Additional Chief Engineer is legal and valid. Unfortunately, the Act was not brought to the notice of the High Court when the direction to repatriate the appellant was made by the High Court. But the failure to bring to the notice of the court does not have the effect of nullifying the valid action legislatively taken.
6. In these circumstances, the order of the High Court and consequent order of the Government repatriating the appellant from the Corporation service to the State service are declared illegal. Consequently the appellant must be deemed to have been retired from service as Additional Chief Engineer of the Corporation. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The appellant is entitled to all the consequential benefits, all pensionary, benefits etc. from the Corporation. No costs.