AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img










State of M.P. & Anr Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya [1996] INSC 835 (22 July 1996)

Ramaswamy, K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)

CITATION: 1996 SCALE (5)777

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

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 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.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys