Pramod Kumar Baliyan vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—With effect from 22nd December, 2009, the qualification of Commissioners for Employee''s Compensation have been altered. While, however, so altering Section 20(1) of the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923, specifying such qualifications has not been substituted, instead some part of Section 20(1) of the said Act has been omitted, and some has been added. In the circumstances, the qualification, thus, incorporated should be deemed to be prospective in nature. Further more, the Legislature, while being abreast of the fact that Commissioner for Employee''s Compensation are functioning, did not provide in the amending Act, by which the qualifications were altered, that the persons working as such Commissioners, but does not possess the qualifications inserted, would not be entitled to continue to function as such Commissioners. In the circumstances, as we have read, since after 22nd December 2009, the State cannot appoint Commissioner for Employee''s Compensation unless the person to be so appointed has qualification as mentioned in Section 20(1) of the Act. In the present Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner contended that persons having no such qualification are discharging the duties of Commissioner for Employee''s Compensation. The petitioner has accepted that they are such Commissioners, who were appointed as such, prior to 22nd December, 2009. In the circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition by putting on record that in view of the change in the Act, effected by the Legislature, it is incumbent on the State to appoint such persons as Commissioners, who have qualifications mentioned in Section 20(1) of the Act, as stood amended on 22nd December, 2009. With the observation as above, the writ petition is disposed of.