Author: Madhushree Pranesh Malekar, Student, S.T. Wilfred college of Law

Edited by: Priyanshu Tyagi, Student, Mewar Law Institute, Vasundhra

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Constitution of India is the Supreme Law of India. The Constitution declares India a sovereign, a socialist, secular, and democratic republic, and assures citizens justice, equality, and liberty. and endeavors to promote fraternity. The Constitution also confers powers on each and every legislature and judicial body, and no one will interfere with each other. This remains a legal issue in the matter of compensation. Compensation means money that is paid to someone in exchange for something that has been lost, damaged, or for some other problem. There are some legal provisions for compensation, but there are also some limitations and criteria for availing of compensation. In this case, the compensation term relates more to the compensation of the appellant on the cessation of his functioning as a chairman in the Taxation Tribunal. Cabinet decisions, the interpretation of constitutional provisions, and the applicability of the principle of legitimate exception are some key legal issues and parts of the below-mentioned case.

Keywords (Minimum 5): Compensation, Principle of Legitimate Exception, Compensation, Writ, Cabinet decision, Premature Termination, Division Bench.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title / Case Name –  J.P.Bansal vs State of Rajasthan & Anr om 12 March,2003
ii) Case Number –  Appeal (civil) 5982 of 2001
iii) Judgement Date – 12th March 2003
iv) Court – Rajasthan High Court
v) Quorum / Constitution of Bench – .SHIVRAJ V. PATIL & ARJIT PASAYAT
vi) Author / Name of Judges – Arjit Pasayat
vii) Citation – Appeal ( Civil) 5982 of 2001
viii) Legal Provisions Involved – Article 166 of Constitution, Clause (2) of Article 310 of Constitution, Section 4(b)of Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal(Repeal) Ordinance,1999

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT:

The judgment concern was filed by an individual who holds the position of chairman of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was demolished by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (Repeal) Ordinance, 1999, leading to premature termination of appellant tenure. The appellant prays for compensation for the remaining period of his tenure. However, the high court dismissed his claim, stating that there was no government order and no application of legitimate exception involved.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE:
a. Procedural Background of the Case:
i. Appellant appeals against dismissal of his claim for compensation by a single judge of the Rajasthan Court.
ii. In his written petition, he argued for compensation based on various grounds, including legitimate exceptions and cabinet decisions.
iii. The single judge dismissed the writ petition, stating that the tribunals abolition and pending transfer cases to the High Court rejected the need for compensation.

b. Factual Background of the Case:
A) The appellant was appointed as a judicial member of the tribunal by notification dated September 16, 1995, by the Finance Department (Taxation Division) of the Government of Rajasthan.
B) The appellant was appointed to discharge the functions of the Chairman of the Tribunal until the appointment of a regular chairman. This requirement arose due to the previous chairman attaining the age of 65.
C) State Government vide notification on dated 27/02/1999 issued ordinance, The same become operative on 27/02/1999. By the above ordinance, matters and proceedings pending before the Tribunal on the date of commencement of the ordinance were automatically transferred to the High Court for disposal.
D) Due to the Tribunal being abolished, which resulted in the appellant’s continuance as chairman, he came to an end.
E) The appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 5,35,648/- with interest at 15% per annum by filing a Writ Petition on the ground that his tenure appointment was to continue up to September 18, 2000.
F) The Writ Petition was filed before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench. By judgment dated September 27, 1999, in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4379 of 1999, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned single judge.

G) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED:
A) Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for the premature termination of his position as Chairman of the Tribunal?
B) Whether the principle of legitimate exception has been involved?
C) Whether the Cabinet decision regarding compensation constitutes government order under Article 166 of the Constitution?

H) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS:
1. The counsels for the petitioner and appellant submitted that the decision of the cabinet should be enforceable regarding the payment of compensation.
2. Even though there is no contractual provision for compensation, it should be considered a basic requirement based on clause (2) of Article 310 of the Constitution.
3. The appellant is also claiming that the state government was bound to pay compensation due to the violation of a legitimate exception to continue until the end of his tenure, and he relied on section 4(b) of the ordinance, which clearly states that any liability arising under the repealed Act should not be affected by the repeal.

I) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:
1. The counsel for the respondent submitted that clause (2) of Article 310 will not apply in the absence of contractual provision for Compensation.
2. The counsel for the respondent submitted that, according to the facts of the case, there will be no application of a legitimate exception.
3. The counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no order of government in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution regarding compensation.
4. The counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no legal provision regarding compensation on the grounds of premature termination of tenure.

B) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
1. Article 166 of the Constitution of India: This Article covers the conduct of business by the government in a state. It mentioned that all executive action of the government of the state shall be expressed to be taken in the name of Governor.
2. Clause (2) of Article 310 of the Constitution of India: This clause empowers the Governor to enter into contracts providing for compensation.
3. Section 4(b) of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (Repeal) Ordinance, 1999: This section states that the repeal of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995, shall not affect any liability incurred under the repealed Act.

H) JUDGEMENT
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
1. The appellant prays for issuing a writ of mandamus to the State of Rajasthan to pay compensation for the termination of his premature tenure as chairman due to the abolishment of the Taxation Tribunal.
2. The high court dismissed his claim as there is no government order in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution regarding cabinet decisions.
3. The High Court also found that the principle of legitimate exception did not apply to the facts of the case.
4. Clause 2 of Article 310 did not apply in the absence of contractual provisions for compensation.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS:

In my opinion, the decision of Rajasthan High Court was very intense, as there are Facts of the case there was no government order in terms of Article 166 of the constitution regarding cabinet decision on compensation and also there is no any application of Principle of legitimate exception did not apply to the facts of the case and also there was no any specific provisions for compensation in relevant statutes govern tribunals abolition. Legal Provision was not Complied.

J) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
i. National Building Construction Corporation vs. S. Raghunathan & Ors. (1998 (7) SCC 66).
ii. Sri Justice S,K,Ray, vs State of Orissa and Ors. JT 2003(1) SC1660
b. Important Statutes Referred
i. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950
ii. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (Repeal) Ordinance, 1999