Service Law

Seniority

— Determination of seniority — Transfer — Employee transferred to another department/unit on his own request — Seniority of — Reckoning of — Held, has to be reckoned only from the date of his joining duty in the new department/unit — He has then to forego the past service — Said position in the present matter governed by relevant service rules i.e. proviso to R. 27(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, (2006) 5 SCC 386-A

Constitution of India

— Arts. 162 & 73 — Executive instructions — Applicability of — Where statutory rules govern the field, prior executive instructions cease to apply, (2006) 5 SCC 386-B

Interpretation of Statutes

Particular statutes or provisions

— Exception/Exemption provision — Held, once statutory rule is made without providing any exceptions, no exceptions can be carved out to such rule by judicial interpretation — Nor can an exemption from application of a clear and specific rule be claimed on the ground of hardship or similar reasons, (2006) 5 SCC 386-C

Interpretation of Statutes

Basic rules

— Determination of legislative intent — Held, alleged intention behind a provision could not be used to defeat the express words of the provision, (2006) 5 SCC 386-D

Service Law

State Services

— Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 — R. 27(a) proviso — Applicability of — Determination of seniority for promotion — Held, said proviso applies to all employees transferred on own request — It does not make distinction between employees whose promotion post is a Statewise post and those whose promotion post is a districtwise post, (2006) 5 SCC 386-E

Service Law

State Services

— Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 — R. 27(a) proviso & (c) — Held, cl. (c) has no effect or application over the proviso to cl. (a), (2006) 5 SCC 386-F

Statute Law

Prospective operation

— Rule concerned was in force for several years — Hence held, it could not have been directed by High Court to be given effect prospectively — More so in a proceeding where the validity of the rule was not in challenge, (2006) 5 SCC 386-G

Judicial Process

Delay

— Delay incurred in proceedings — Right to relief — Matter under litigation for about 16 years — Prayer of respondents whose seniority was wrongly determined that matter should not be unsettled after such a long time — Sustainability of — Held, not sustainable — Delay in disposal cannot defeat the rights of the other party, (2006) 5 SCC 386-H