1. Government employees deputed for higher qualifications at government expense were denied advance increments based on a specific cut-off date, unlike those who funded their own training. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1099
1996(6) Supreme 262
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Badrinarayan Acharya etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9895 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9010 of 1994)
with
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)
Decided on 22-7-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Sakesh Kumar, S.K. Agnihotri, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Niraj Sharma, Advocate.
Important Points
The Court held that a government-prescribed cut-off date for eligibility is valid. Employees who undergo training at government expense are not entitled to advance increments if the applicable rules explicitly restrict such benefits to those who pursue training at their own cost.
Subject
Administrative Law - Government Employment
Act Referred
Headnote
SERVICE LAW-Assistant Teachers deputed for obtaining higher qualification in 1966-Decision by the Government on October 20, 1964 that servants who had gone on training 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-Given cut-off date was valid and no fault could be found. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the imposition of a cut-off date for eligibility for advance increments is legally valid and whether government-funded training excludes employees from such benefits. (Para 2 )
3. The government's decision to set a cut-off date for training options is valid, and employees receiving pay and expenses for training are ineligible for advance increments. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. A government-mandated cut-off date for benefit eligibility is valid, and employees receiving government funding for training cannot simultaneously claim advance increments for that training. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Appeals allowed and Tribunal's orders dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. Is a cut-off date established by the government for determining eligibility for service benefits legally valid?
Yes, if the government takes a decision on a specific date to allow certain options or benefits, the resulting cut-off date is considered perfectly valid in law. (Para 2 )
7. Are government employees deputed for training at government expense eligible for advance increments?
No, employees who receive training at government expense, thereby benefiting from pay and expenses, are excluded from the grant of advance increments. (Para 3 )
8. How does the timing of proceeding for training affect eligibility for advance increments under the specified government memo?
Those proceeding for training up to the cut-off date are eligible regardless of cost, while those proceeding on or after the cut-off date are eligible only if training is at their own cost. (Para 3 )
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2. 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. 3536/88 & 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 qualifications, 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 had taken the decision, the given cut-off date is perfectly valid in law and no fault can be found. It is then contended that since the respondents had gone on training to improve their qualifications, they are eligible for two advance increments.
3. It is seen that the order is explicit as under :
"As per Finance Department s Memo 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 at 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 22.10.64 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.
4. The appeals are accordingly allowed. T.As. stand dismissed. No costs.
Appeals allowed.
*******
