Summary
The Supreme Court held that the substituted Section 6 governing Debts Recovery Tribunal Presiding Officers applied to incumbents serving on 1 September 2016. They could complete their five-year tenure subject to the age ceiling of sixty-five. This was application to continuing service, not revival of appointments already ended before the amendment. Petitioners protected by interim orders could continue; the writ petitioner was to be reinstated forthwith with continuity and intervening salary.
Issues
- Whether the 2016 substitution of Section 6 extended the enhanced age limit to Presiding Officers already serving when it came into force.
- Whether applying the new provision to continuing incumbents required retrospective operation.
Provisions considered
- Section 6, as substituted with effect from 1 September 2016, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993The five-year tenure subject to the sixty-five-year ceiling applied to officers holding office on the commencement date, including these petitioners. (¶¶ 1–2, 4, 12–23)
- Section 6A and its proviso, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993Its express distinction between existing and future appointees contrasted with the absence of such a distinction in substituted section 6, supporting application to serving incumbents. (¶¶ 2, 22)
Held
- The substitution replaced the earlier tenure provision, and the language, context and purpose showed an intention to cover officers in service on 1 September 2016. Substitution does not invariably entail the same temporal effect in every statute; legislative intention remains controlling. (¶¶ 12–15, 18–22)
- Applying the new provision to officers still serving on its commencement date was not retrospective revival. Those who had demitted office before the amendment were not claimed to be covered. The provision operated on the continuing tenure. (¶ 15–17)
- The legislative objective of reducing tribunal vacancies and pendency favoured extending the benefit to incumbents. The contrary argument that the negative age-ceiling proviso created no enforceable benefit was rejected. (¶ 18–23)
- The petitioners could serve until completion of five years or attainment of sixty-five, whichever came first. Those benefiting from interim stays could continue; the petitioner in Writ Petition 732 of 2018 was to be taken back forthwith with continuity of service and salary for the intervening period. (¶¶ 12, 24)
Result
Writ petition and transferred cases allowed without costs. Protected incumbents may continue for the remaining eligible tenure; writ petitioner to be reinstated forthwith with continuity and intervening salary.