Executive order over riding rules of article 309

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 02 September 2023 This query is : Resolved
Sir,

Pension to govt servants is protected in Article 309.But without promulgation under Article 309,

1. Executive order for New pension scheme was notified on 22.12.2003, followed by a PFRDA ordinance which was notified and lapsed April 2003.

2. Again, a fresh PFRDA ordinance was notified immediately.

3. After many ordinances lapsed, finally it became Act after passed by parliament in 2014 giving retrospective effect on the executive order notification dated 23.12.2003.

4. Till that time, an executive order notification was over riding pension rules of Article 309.

I have come across many supreme court judgements ruling executive order cannot over ride or change or alter the rules under Article 309 and some not favouring retrospective effect too.

In view of the above, the implementation of NPS can legally valid only after it became law. Can we approach court on the above contention?

Thanks in advance

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

This discussion questions the legal standing of an executive order that introduced the New Pension Scheme (NPS) before it was enacted into law, potentially overriding Article 309 pension rules. While Supreme Court rulings suggest executive orders cannot supersede Article 309, the government later passed the PFRDA Act with retrospective effect from the executive order's date. The response suggests this retrospective enactment removes ambiguity, making a legal challenge based on the executive order's initial validity unlikely to succeed.

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 03 September 2023
not abkle to form a view without going trough the papers mentioned in query.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 03 September 2023
Though it is a repeated question, I repeat the answer given to your similar question posted in a different thread:
By your contents it can be noted that the government enacted the law with retrospective effect, therefore there is no ambiguity in that. In such circumstance your plan to approach court for clarification or to get your imaginary grievance redressed make not be legally maintainable. You have mentioned about some supreme court rulings over riding the executive orders or not recognizing the retrospective of an act as not valid, if you nothing prevented you from filing the relevant judgment or at least the link so that more proper opinion could have been rendered.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries