M J Antony: Old promises, new government

OUT OF COURT

When a new government is elected and takes over, it comes across several decisions of the previous government with which it does not agree. The new broom sometimes sweeps it all clean "" old resolutions are rescinded, ignored, bypassed or quietly shelved.

Sometimes the new government moves with vengeance, as it were. But those who are affected by this negative action can move the courts. The judiciary considers the government a continuing entity and, therefore, insists that promises to the people are meant to be kept.

This aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in a recent judgement involving 4,000 employees working in 40 colleges affiliated to various universities in Bihar and Jharkhand. In the case of, State of Bihar vs Bihar Rajya Mahasangh, the court said: "Mere change of the elected government does not justify dishonouring the decisions of the previous government."

In this case, the Bihar government took a decision to convert affiliated colleges of different universities into constituent colleges, in a phased manner. This led to claims by various categories of employees for absorption in the services of the constituent colleges.

The state government constituted a committee and on its recommendation, passed an order to absorb the employees on a provisional basis. Yet another committee was set up after that and based on its report, a formal decision was taken to absorb teachers against sanctioned posts.

Then came a change of government. There was rethinking on the earlier government's decision to absorb employees. The new government alleged that a number of employees got surreptitious entry into the services in connivance with the members of college governing bodies.

This became a scandal and a subject of hot debate in the Legislative Assembly. Apprehending large-scale terminations, the employees in Bihar (and later those of the newly-formed Jharkhand state) moved the Patna High Court. It asked the universities to take steps for regularisation. Therefore, the two state governments appealed to the Supreme Court.

The court found that the state was the author of the previous decisions. Therefore, it cannot be allowed to go back on those decisions.

If the earlier proclamations were not acceptable to the newly-elected government, it was open to it to withdrawing or rescinding them formally. In the absence of such an open withdrawal or rescission, it was not for the two state governments to contend that the decisions of the previous government were not binding on them.

With this remark, the Supreme Court asked the two state governments to complete the task of absorbing the staff.

In the industrial field, revoking the promises of earlier governments is common, leading to litigation. Last month, the Supreme Court decided such a case in State of Rajasthan vs J K Udaipur Udyog Ltd.

The government framed a scheme granting exemption to industrial units from payment of sales tax on intra-state and inter-state sale of goods manufactured in Rajasthan. Later, the exemption was extended to sick units, too. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheme could be modified by the government and the units had no vested right in it.

In yet another recent decision, Tata Iron and Steel Co vs State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court asked the new government to grant the incentives promised to new units by the earlier government.

But sometimes, the same government changes its stand when the financial position becomes tight or it finds it difficult to fulfil its promises. In Sales Tax Officers vs Shree Durga Oil Mills, it has ruled that the government could change policy resolutions if there was overwhelming public interest. There have been a number of cases of breach of government promises in recent times.

The moral of the story, perhaps, is that the word of the government should be taken with a pinch of salt, especially when there is a change of guard in the offing.