Supreme Court of India
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. versus SHAKRI KHAN
- Decided
- 19 April 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 608 · 1996 INSC 559
- Also cited as
- (1996) 8 SCC 648
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
p. 608, margin E
This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated January 21, 1994 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench in 0.A. No. 323/93 and 173/93. The admitted facts are that the respondent was appointed prior to 1973. The Government had introduced the scheme of granting two advance increments for the Lower Division Clerks who passed the Hindi typewriting test. They prescribed the last date for passing the test as July 30, 1973 and those who passed the Hindi typewriting test prior to that date was declared eligible to get two advance increments. Since the respondent could not pass the test within that period but passed the said test in December, 1979, he filed the O.A. claiming the said benefit on the basis of certain instructions issued from time to time, viz. dated April 20, 1974, January 15, 1979 etc. which are marked as Annexure R-3 to the paper book. On that ba,is, it was contended that he is also entitled to the benefit of two advance increments. On principle, we agreed with the State that the Government having had the power to extend the benefit it also has the power to put a cut-off date. Consequently, the cut-off date, viz., July 30, 1973 for passing the test is a proper classification. All those who did not pass the test prior to that date, but appointed earlier to that date are not eligible to two advance increments on their passing the said test after the cut-off date.
pp. 608–609, margin F
It is contended that the said order is not insisted upon with regard to those candidates who passed the test after July 30, 1973. It is made clear by the respondent that the Government have issued orders for recruitment of LDCs with the qualification of passing the typewriting test with effect from that date. Therefore, they did not insist upon passing the test for advance increments nor such an employee is granted any advance increment. It is then contended by the counsel for the respondent that though those who were· appointed aft~r that date were not given incentive of two advance increments, by necessary implication those who are appointed. earlier are entitl~d to two advance increments as incentive. We do not appreciate the contention as well-founded. Since the Government have take.a decision to appoint the candidates with typewriting examination as a qualification, the need to give additional increments to new appointees, after the appointment, does not arise. It would arise only in the case of candidates who were appointed prior to the introduction of typewriting test as a qualification which was not prescribed earlier but who were given time for passing the test. The cut-off date was accordingly fixed as July 20, 1973 and those passed the test prior to test date alone were made entitled to two advance increments and those who passed the test thereafter are not entitled to the said benefit.
p. 609, margin C
Though this declaration has been given, since we are informed that the State has not filed appeals against same orders passed by the Tribunal in similar cases, the payments made to the respondent is directed not lo be recovered. This law will be applicable to all pending cases or any candidate who approaches the court hereafter.
p. 609, margin F
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. G.N. Appeal disposed of.
p. 609, margin G