SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1099

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
State Of M. P. – Appellant
Versus
Badrinarayan Acharya – Respondent


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 t






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top