Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF M.P. & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BADRINARAYAN ACHARYA ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/07/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (5)777
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9904, 9899-9903 AND 9896-98 OF 1996
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 9025, 9020, 9021, 9022, 9023,
9024 & 11235-37/94)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
We have heard counsel on both sides. These appeals by
special leave arise from the orders of the M.P. Admn.
Tribunal, Indore Bench made in T.A. Nos.3536/83 & batch on
October 23, 1993. The admitted facts are that the
respondents, while in service as Assistant Teachers, were
deputed at the Government expenses for obtaining higher
qualification of graduation etc. and in some case, for B.Ed
degree. They were deputed in the year 1966 but on October
20, 1964 that candidates may go at their own cost or deputed
by Court and that the Government had decided. Such of the
employees who had gone on training at Government expenses to
improve their qualification were held ineligible for two
advance increments and who had gone at their own expenses,
were made eligible for two advance increments. It is not in
dispute that the respondents had gone for training at the
Government expenses to improve their qualifications. The
Tribunal held that imposition of the cut-off date of October
22, 1964 is bad in law. We find that the view of the
Tribunal is not correct. It is seen, that the Government
have taken decision on the said date to allow the benefit of
option to the candidates to go on training for improving
their qualifications either at their own cost or at the
expenses of the Government. Since on that date, the
Government half taken the decision, the given cut-off date
is perfectly valid in law and no fault can he found. It is
then contended that since the respondents had gone on
training to improve they qualifications, they are eligible
for two advance increments.
It is seen that the order is explicit as under:
"As per Finance Department’s Memo
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
No. 16333-CR-1892-I VRI dated
22.10.64 the advance increments are
to be allowed only to those
government servants who have
received training et their own
costs and Government servants
deputed for training at Government
expenses are excluded from the
grant of advance increments. These
orders have not been given
retrospective effect but they come
into force from the date of issue
of orders. Accordingly anyone who
proceeded for training upto 22.10.4
whether at his cost or at
government cost, will be eligible
to the concession. Those who
proceeded on training on or after
23.10.64 can get the concession
only if the training is at his own
cost and not at the cost of the
government."
A reading thereof would clearly indicate that such of
those in service who had gone on training to improve their
qualifications at the Government expenses, would not be
eligible for two advance increments while those who had gone
on training at their own expenses, would be eligible for two
advance increments within the stipulated period mentioned in
the order. It would be obvious that they had the benefit of
pay and expenses. Consequently, they were denied advance
increments. Under these circumstances, we hold that the view
of the Tribunal is clearly unsustainable in law.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. T.As. stand
dismissed. No costs.