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
Pages: 1 2