IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
JANAK RAJ KOTWAL, J.
Jawahar Lal Raina & ors. – Appellant
vs.
State of J&K and Ors. – Respondent
SWP No. 1791 of 2006, MP No. 2253 of 2006
Decided On : 31-08-2017
Advance Increments - Interpretation of Rules - Rules of 1982, 1987, 1992 - The court discussed the interpretation and application of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1992, which temporarily suspended the benefit of advance increments for fresh recruits. The court highlighted the clear meaning of Rule 8 and its implications, emphasizing that the Finance Department's decision to withdraw the benefit for in-service officers was erroneous.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, officers in the Agriculture and Horticulture Departments, sought to challenge the withdrawal of advance increments for acquiring higher qualifications as in-service officers. The Finance Department had waived the excess payment and ordered the recovery of pay and allowances from the officers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Finance Department's decision to withdraw the benefit of advance increments for in-service officers who acquired higher qualifications after the Rules of 1992 was erroneous. The court held that Rule 8 of the Rules of 1992 did not intend to suspend the benefit for officers appointed prior to the Rules' enforcement.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation and application of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1992, the Finance Department's decision to withdraw the benefit of advance increments, and the potential discrimination against in-service officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Finance Department's decision to withdraw the benefit of advance increments for in-service officers was erroneous and amounted to re-writing a statutory provision, which is not permissible. The court emphasized that statutory rules prevail over executive orders and administrative decisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, quashing the communications and restraining the respondents from withdrawing the benefit of advance increments given to the officers in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1992.
“12. Advance increment(s) on acquisition of higher qualification either while in service or at the time of initial appointment, as admissible under the relevant rules and orders, in various Departments like Education, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Health, Medical Education etc. will continue to be allowed in the revised scales on the existing terms and conditions.”
2. The Rules of 1982 were followed by the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987 (for short, the Rules of 1987) notified vide SRO 370 dated 17.07.1987. The benefit of advance increment(s) was similarly maintained under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1987. Rule 12 is extracted:
“12. Advance increment(s) on acquisition of higher qualification either while in service or at the time of initial appointment, as admissible under the relevant rules and orders, in various Departments like Education, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Health, Medical Education etc. will continue to be allowed in the revised scales on the existing terms and conditions.”
3. Important feature of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1982 and Rule 12 of the Rules of 1987, which is relevant to be noticed, is that the benefit of advance increment(s) was available to the officers, who possessed the higher qualification at the time of initial appointment, as well as the officers, who acquired such qualification while in service.
4. The Rules of 1987 were followed by the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1992 (for short, the Rules of 1992), which were notified vide SRO 75 dated 30.03.1992 and were deemed to have come into force on 01.04.90. There was a change in grant of the benefit for higher qualification under the Rules of 1992, inasmuch as the benefit of advance increment(s) to the fresh recruits in the aforementioned departments was temporarily withdrawn. The benefit to be granted for higher qualification was incorporated in Rule 8, which is extracted:
“8. The existing provisions of Rule (10) and Rule (12) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987, relating to the benefit of higher starting salary/advance increment(s) for higher qualification, in respect of all Departments, except to the extent of the posts of Police Constables and Junior Engineers, as provided in Rule 9(d) and (f), shall remain inoperative temporarily for fresh recruits till such time as fresh orders are issued in this behalf by the Government.”(underlining by me)
5. Close on the heels of the notification of the Rules of 1992, the Finance Department issued O. M. No. A/37(92)-633 dated 15.09.1992 whereby it was clarified that the terms, “Fresh recruitments”, “fresh appointments”, “New appointments”, “Future appointments”, appearing in the Rules of 1992 shall mean appointments as have been made or shall be made on or before 31.03.1992.
6. The petitioners are/were the officers in the Agriculture Department and Horticulture Department. They were appointed prior to the year 1990 at different times starting from the year 1978. All of them acquired higher qualification of M.Sc. Agriculture at different times after the year 1992, that is, after coming into force of the Rules of 1992 up to the year 2000. As all of them acquired higher qualification as in-service officers, that is, after their initial appointment, they were granted the benefit of the advance
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.