Supreme Court of India
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. versus BADRINARAYAN ACHARYA ETC. ETC.
- Decided
- 22 July 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 789 · 1996 INSC 765
- Also cited as
- (1996) 10 SCC 271
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.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
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.
Delay condoned. Leave granted. I.A. 3 for the Substitution of Respondent is allowed. We have heard counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the M .P. Admn. Tribunal, lhdore Bench made in T.A. Nos. 3536/88 & batch on October 23, 1993. The admitted facts are that the respondents, \vhile in service as Assi~tant Teachers, \Vere deputed al the Government expenses for obtaining higher qualification of graduation etc. and in son1e case, for B.td. degree. They \Vere deputed in the ywr 1966 but on October 2, 1964 the Government had decided to depute the Candidates al their own cost or al the Government expenses. Such of the employees who had gone on training at Government expenses lo improve their qualifications, 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 Goven1n1cnt expenses to in1provc their qualifications. The Tribunal held that imposition of the cut-off dale 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 take decision on the said date to allow the benefit of option to the candi<lalcs to go on training for improving their qualifications either at their cost or at the expenses of the Governn1cnt. Since on that date, the Government had 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 their qualifications, they are eligible for two advance increments.
pp. 789–790, margin G
It is seen that the order is explicit as under :
p. 790, margin E
"As per Finance Department's Memo No. 16333-C:R-1892-1 YR! dated 22.10.64, the advance increments are to be allowed only to those government servants who have received training at their costs and Govcrnn1ent 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 22.10.64 whether al his cost or at Government cost, \Vill be eligible to the concession. Those who proceeded on training on or after 23. !0.64 can get the concession only if the training is at his cost and not at the cost
p. 790, margin E
of the government.
p. 790, margin G
A reading thereof \vould clearly indicate that such of those in service who ha<l gone on training to in1prove their qualifications at the Government expenses, would not be eligible for two advance increments while tho.<e who had gone on training at their own expenses, would be eligible for two advance increments \Vithin the stipulated period mentioned in lhe 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 dearly unsustainable in law.
pp. 790–791, margin G
The appeals are accordingly allowed. T.As. stand dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeals allowed .
p. 791, margin B