The Supreme Court on 07.09.2018, in GOTTUMUKKALA VENKATA KRISHAMRAJU v UNION OF INDIA & ORS allowed the writ petitions of Petitioners who had been appointed as Presiding Officers of Debt Recovery Tribunal which was established under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 rechristened as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 in the concerned Writ Petition.
Facts :The Petitioners had been appointed before Section 6 of the Act had been amended as such during the appointment time , the tenure of office was fixed as five years or till one had reached the age of sixty two. During the time of filing of petition, the petitioners being the officers had not completed the tenure at service. Although, they were completing or had attained the required age after the amendment of the section had taken place.
Issue: Whether the petitioners were to be governed by the amended Section 6 / are the provision to be applied prospectively?
Contention raised by the Petitioners:
a) It was contended that the amended Section 6 had been substituted with the old one as such it would applicable to all those officers holding the office during the time the amendment came into force. Also, since the section had been substituted that would also imply that the concerned Section 6 should stand obliterated.
b) The main reason for amending the Section was to lessen the burden of pendency by enhancing the age of the presiding officers.
c) There was no proviso that had been added making the intention of the legislature clear, where the presiding officers at office on the amendment date shall come under the governance of the amended sec.
Contention raised by the respondent:
a)The poison that was added to the proviso had been couched in negative way as it speaks about the persons not being entitled too hold office after the age of sixty five resulting in no right in favour of any person .
b)It had been contended that unless a retrospective affect has been given by the legislature , the operation is presumed to be prospective as such the intention of meaning the section was in connection with appointments which were to be made on or after the date on which it would be effective.
c) The main purpose was infusion of young blood by recruiting fresh Presiding Officers.
Held: The Apex Court allowed the petition of the petitioners and concluded by upholding that there lies no legislative distinction between the future officers who are to be appointed in near future and the existing ones for the amended section to be applied. The Supreme Court further ordered the existing officer to be taken back to the service with continued service and salary.
