Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dr. Manu & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3752 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.22633 of 2017)
Decided On : 16-05-2023
(A) Service Law – Increments – Grant of two advance increments to Respondent No. 1 on his placement as a Selection Grade Lecturer in terms of Clause 6.18 of Government Order dated 21st December, 1999 – Subsequent Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 cannot be declared as a clarification and be made applicable retrospectively – Law provides that a clarification must not have effect of saddling any party with an unanticipated burden or withdrawing from any party an anticipated benefit – However, Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 has restricted eligibility of lecturers for advance increments at the time of placement in selection grade, only to those who do not have a Ph.D. degree at the time of recruitment and subsequently acquire same – Merely because subsequent Government Order has been described as a clarification/explanation or is said to have been issued following a clarification that was sought in that regard, Court is not bound to accept that said order is only clarificatory in nature – Subsequent Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 is not merely clarificatory but is a substantial amendment which seeks to withdraw benefit of two advance increments in favour of a certain category of lecturers – Benefit withdrawn was not anticipated under previously existing scheme – Such an amendment cannot be given retrospective effect – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 10,10.3 and 12)
(B) Interpretation of Statute – Any legislation or instrument having force of law, which is clarificatory or explanatory in nature and purport and which seeks to clear doubts or correct an obvious omission in a statute, would generally be retrospective in operation – An explanation/clarification may not expand or alter scope of original provision – Merely describing a provision as an “Explanation” or a “clarification” is not decisive of its true meaning and import. (Paras 8.1 and 9.1)
Facts of the case:
Point for consideration is, whether High Court was right and justified in directing grant of two advance increments to Respondent No. 1 in terms of Clause 6.18 of the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999, on his placement as a Selection Grade Lecturer?
Findings of Court:
Lecturers such as Respondent No. 1 who were placed in the selection grade before 29th March, 2001 would be entitled to all the incentives stipulated in Government Order dated 21st December, 1999.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Nagarathna, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-University assailing the final judgment and order dated 10th August, 2016, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 254 of 2016. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the Appellant-University and confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, dated 13th October, 2015 whereby the appellant-University was directed to grant two advance increments to Respondent No. 1 in terms of Clause 6.18 of the revised University Grants Commission (“UGC”) Scheme, 1998 and Government Order dated 21st December, 1999, on his placement as a Selection Grade Lecturer.
3. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
3.1. Respondent No.1, namely, Dr. Manu joined the service of the Appellant-University on 14th July, 1999, as a Lecturer in the Hindi language department. At the time, he had previously rendered over eleven years of service as a Lecturer of Hindi in Mahatma Gandhi Government Arts College, Mahe, Pondicherry for the period between 23rd December, 1988 and 13th July, 1999.
3.2. By an order dated 25th November, 2004, Respondent No. 1 was placed in the senior scale w.e.f. 14th July, 1999. Further, he was granted four advance increments by virtue of Clause 6.16 of the UGC Scheme dated 21st December, 1999 which provides that candidates who hold Ph.D. degree at the time of recruitment as lecturers would be eligible for four advance increments.
3.3. Thereafter, by an order dated 20th October, 2011, Respondent No. 1 was placed as a Selection Grade Lecturer w.e.f. 14th July, 2000, with the notional date of placement as 22nd December, 1999 and consequently, his pay was fixed by order dated 12th January, 2012 at Rs. 46,440-9000-55,440/-. In fixing the pay, two advance increments, payable on placement of a Lecturer holding a Ph.D. degree as a Selection Grade Lecturer, as per Clause 6.18 of the UGC Scheme dated 21st December, 1999, were not granted.
3.4. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 28567 of 2012 before the High Court of Kerala challenging the orders of the Appellant-University dated 20th October, 2011 and 12th January, 2012, on the ground that two advance increments, payable to him on placement as a Selection Grade Lecturer were erroneously withheld. The reliefs, inter alia, prayed for in the said writ petition are as under:
i) To issue a direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12th January, 2012 to the extent of denial of placement benefits from 22nd December, 1999 to 14th July, 2000.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Appellant- University to grant two advance increments to Respondent No. 1, in accordance with Clause 6.18 of the UGC Scheme dated 22nd December, 1999, at the time of his placement in the selection grade and accordingly refix his pay with effect from 22nd December, 1999.
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Appellant- University to disburse the salary and arrears payable to Respondent No. 1 from 22nd December, 1999, i.e., the date on which he was placed in the selection grade to 14th July, 2000.
3.5. The Appellant-University filed a counter affidavit in the said writ petition taking the stand that Respondent No. 1 was not eligible to claim any further increments based on his Ph.D. degree, on his placement in the selection grade in light of the Government Order, G.O. (P) No. 44/2001/H.Edn. dated 29th March, 2001 which had clarified that teachers who had already got the benefit of advance increments for having a Ph.D. degree, would not be eligible for advance increments at the time of their placement in the selection grade
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the incentive increment for M.Phil. degree is to be granted from the date of the Government order, and the scheme of incentive increment is a ....
The court allows review of its previous judgment due to the non-production of crucial evidence and documents, which misled the court regarding the salary fixation and entitlement to advance increment....
A government department cannot withdraw previously sanctioned benefits without legal basis, especially when qualifications required for those benefits are met.
Point of Law : Clause 6.19 of Ext.P2 order provided that a teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when she/he acquires a Ph.D degree in her/his service career.
The court reaffirmed that all teachers in aided educational institutions must be treated equally regarding career advancement benefits, and any arbitrary deductions in service years violate the princ....
Payment of incentive increments based on higher qualifications gained should not be reclaimed unless based on misrepresentation or fraud.
The benefit of pay-scale and designation granted to the appellant remained personal and did not amount to his substantive appointment as a Lecturer.
Lack of prior permission does not bar incentive increments for higher qualifications acquired before 2020 G.O. cancellation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
