TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, and it is not permissible for the Court to twist the clear language of the enactment, in order to avoid any real, or imaginary hardship which such literal interpretation may cause. It becomes crystal clear that, under the garb of interpreting the provision, the Court does not have the power to add or subtract even a single word, as it would not amount to interpretation, but legislation. - If the contention of the appellants is accepted, it would amount to fixing their seniority from a date prior, to their birth in the cadre. Admittedly, the appellants (17th batch), joined training on 2.7.1993 and their claim is to fix their seniority from the Ist of February, 1993 i.e. the date on which, the 16th batch joined training. Such a course is not permissible in law. - Decision in the case of Dinesh Kumar v. UOI & Ors. distinguished - Decided against appellant. - CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2133-2134 OF 2004 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2012 - Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ. ORDER Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.: 1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.7.2001, passed by the High Court of Jammu Kashmir at Jammu in SWP No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raining in two separate batches, for administrative reasons i.e. police verification, medical examination etc., cannot be accorded different seniority by bifurcating them into two or more separate batches. The High Court therefore, committed an error by allowing the claim of respondent no.1, which opposed the seniority of the officers, for the reason that, if Batch Nos. 16 and 17 are taken together, the officers who, in terms of seniority, were placed at Serial No.5, would be moved to Serial No. 60, if treated separately. For instance, the person placed at Serial No. 8 had moved to Serial No. 62, and the one placed at Serial No. 11 had moved to Serial No. 64. Thus, such an act has materially adversely affected the seniority of officers even though they were duly selected in the same batch. The provisions of Rule 3 of the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the, `Rules 1978 ), have been wrongly interpreted. The Statutory authorities have previously, always fixed seniority without taking note of the fact that training of officers was conducted in different batches. Thus, appeals deserve to be allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atute, with reference to the exposition that it has received from contemporary authorities. However, while doing so, the Court added words of caution to the effect that such a rule must give way, where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous., This Court applied the said rule of interpretation by holding that contemporanea expositio as expounded by administrative authorities, is a very useful and relevant guide to the interpretation of the expressions used in a statutory instrument. The words used in a statutory provision must be understood in the same way, in which they are usually understood, in ordinary common parlance with respect to the area in which, the said law is in force or, by the people who ordinarily deal with them. (Vide: K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer, Ernakulam Anr., AIR 1981 SC 1922; Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., Cuttack v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar, AIR 1991 SC 1028; and Y.P. Chawla Ors. v. M.P. Tiwari Anr., AIR 1992 SC 1360). 8. In N. Suresh Nathan Anr. v. Union of India Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 584; and M.B. Joshi Ors. v. Satish Kumar Pandey Ors., 1993 Supp (2) SCC 419, this Court observed that such constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which a statutory authority understands the application of a statute, would not confer any legal right upon a party unless the same finds favour with the Court of law, dealing with the matter . 12. This principle has also been applied in judicial decisions, as it has been held consistently, that long standing settled practice of the Competent Authority should not normally be disturbed, unless the same is found to be manifestly wrong, unfair . (Vide: Thamma Venkata Subbamma (dead) by LR. v. Thamma Rattamma Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1775; Assistant District Registrar, Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Vikrambhai Ratilal Dalal Ors., 1987 (Supp) SCC 27; Ajitsinh C. Gaekwad Ors. v. Dileepsinh D. Gaekwad Ors., 1987 (Supp) SCC 439; Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M/s. Standard Motor Products etc., AIR 1989 SC 1298; Kattite Valappil Pathumma Ors. v. Taluk Land Board Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1115; and Hemalatha Gargya v. Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P. Anr., (2003) 9 SCC 510). 13. The rules of administrative interpretation/executive construction, may be applied, either where a representation is made by the maker of a legislation, at the time of the introduction of the Bil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uished from an exception for the reason that exception is intended to restrain the enacting clause to a particular class of cases while the proviso is used to remove special cases from the general enactment provided for them specially. Hardship of an individual: 18. There may be a statutory provision, which causes great hardship or inconvenience to either the party concerned, or to an individual, but the Court has no choice but to enforce it in full rigor. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that hardship or inconvenience caused, cannot be used as a basis to alter the meaning of the language employed by the legislature, if such meaning is clear upon a bare perusal of the Statute. If the language is plain and hence allows only one meaning, the same has to be given effect to, even if it causes hardship or possible injustice. (Vide: Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, West Bengal v. Keshab Chandra Mandal, AIR 1950 SC 265; and D. D. Joshi Ors. v. Union of India Ors., AIR 1983 SC 420). 19. In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar Ors., AIR 1955 SC 661 it was observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court that, if there is any hardship, it is for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by it in framing the statute, and it is not open to the court to add and amend, or by construction, make up for the deficiencies, which have been left in the Act. The Court can only iron out the creases but while doing so, it must not alter the fabric, of which an Act is woven. The Court, while interpreting statutory provisions, cannot add words to a Statute, or read words into it which are not part of it, especially when a literal reading of the same, produces an intelligible result. (Vide: Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar Ors., AIR 1953 SC 148; Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 459; M. Pentiah Ors. v. Muddala Veeramallappa Ors., AIR 1961 SC 1107; The Balasinor Nagrik Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya Ors., AIR 1987 SC 849; and Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 71). 23. The Statute is not to be construed in light of certain notions that the legislature might have had in mind, or what the legislature is expected to have said, or what the legislature might have done, or what the duty of the legislature to have said or done was. The Courts have to administer the law as they find it, and it is not per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no ambiguity with respect to it. The validity of the rule is not under challenge. In such a factsituation, it is not permissible for the court to interpret the rule otherwise. The said proviso will have application only in a case where officers who have been selected in pursuance of the same selection process are split into separate batches. Interpreting the rule otherwise, would amount to adding words to the proviso, which the law does not permit. 28. If the contention of the appellants is accepted, it would amount to fixing their seniority from a date prior, to their birth in the cadre. Admittedly, the appellants (17th batch), joined training on 2.7.1993 and their claim is to fix their seniority from the Ist of February, 1993 i.e. the date on which, the 16th batch joined training. Such a course is not permissible in law. The facts and circumstances of the case neither require any interpretation, nor reading down of the rule. 29. Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel for the appellants, has placed very heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court (Dinesh Kumar v. UOI Ors.) dated 14.2.2011 wherein, certain relief was granted to the petitioner ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
