http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6467 of 2000

PETITIONER: D. Boopalan & Ors

RESPONDENT: Madras Metropolitan W.S.S. Board & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/11/2007

BENCH: B.N.AGRAWAL & ALTAMAS KABIR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR,J.

1.         The Madras Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage  Board (hereinafter referred to as \021the Board\022) was  constituted by the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply &  Sewerage Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the \0211978  Act\022) for exclusively attending to the growing needs of and  for planned development and appropriate regulation of water  supply and sewerage services in the Madras Metropolitan  Area with particular reference to the protection of Public  Health and for all matters connected therewith or  incidental thereto.

2.      Section 81 of the said Act empowered the Board to make  Regulations, which were not inconsistent with the  provisions of the Act for carrying out the objects for  which it had been enacted.  Sub-Section (2) of Section 81  sets out in detail the matters in respect of which such  Regulations could be made.  Clause (c) of Section 2  empowers the Board to make Regulations for the method of  recruitment, the qualifications, the pay, the duties and  other terms and conditions of service of officers and  employees, and the constitution and management of Provident  Fund and other Superannuation Funds.

3.    In pursuance of the said powers the Board framed the  Employees\022 Service Regulations 1978, and Leave Regulations,  1978, which were amended from time to time.

4.      In these appeals, which arise from a common  judgment of the Madras High Court in respect of two Writ  Appeals, we will be required to consider the amendment to  the Leave Regulations by Board Resolution No.86/93 dated  31st March 1993 and Resolution dated 27th February 1995  given effect to by proceedings No. HP/15/93 Personnel and  Administration Department dated 20th April, 1993 and  proceedings No. EP/05/95 Personnel and Administration  Department dated 10th March, 1995.

5.  Prior to the proceedings of 29th April, 1993, the Board  by its Resolution No. 86/93 dated 31st March, 1993,  approved the following amendments to the Service (Leave)  Regulations :-

i.      The existing Regulation 9 on Study Leave  will be retained and shall be applicable to  Employees of the Board other than Engineers.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

Insert the words \023(I) for Board Personnel  other than Engineers\024 below the words \021Study  Leave.\024

ii.       Insert the following as Clause II  below the existing Regulation 9 numbered  class I as above.

1.      For Board\022s Engineers :-

1.      Eligibility:- (i)     A graduate degree in Engineering (in  any discipline). (ii)    Should have completed minimum 5 years  of service. (iii)   Should have at least 15 years of  remaining service.

2.      Facilities :- (i) Study Leave at half pay for a maximum of  30 months during the whole career for higher  studies leading to Post Graduate degree from  a University recognized by UGC. (ii)Seniority will be protected.  However,  no Earned Leave will accrue during the study  leave period.

(C)Recognition of Post Graduate  qualification acquired while in service.

Once a candidate acquires a First Class Post  Graduate Engineering qualification, he will get  two years extra weightage in terms of seniority  which will be counted for elevation.   If he  acquires a second class Post Graduate  Engineering qualification, he will get one  year\022s extra weightage for this purpose.   If  he does not qualify (after availing study  leave) the entire salary drawn during the study  leave period will be recovered.     (Emphasis added)      b.      Miscellaneous:-         An eligible candidate whose  application has been sent with prior  permission of the Board and has been  accepted by the University should execute a  Bond, before he joins the University to  serve the Board for a minimum period of  five years on his rejoining service after  study leave.  If he wants to quit within  this period, he should refund the expenses  incurred by the permitted to draw stipend  or allowances granted by the institution in  addition to the leave salary.                 The amendments will be effective  from 1.4.1993 and will not be made  applicable to the past cases.

                       (BY ORDER)                                  Sd/- M.S. Srinivasan,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

                                       Mg. Director.\024

6.      The aforesaid amendments were subsequently altered  by the Board on 10th March, 1995 whereby some of the  benefits which had been extended to the employees of  the Board having a graduate Degree in Engineering for  proceeding on study leave for acquiring a post graduate  engineering qualification, particularly the one in  clause (11)(c), were rendered nugatory.  

7.  The amendment of 1995 gave rise to disputes which  resulted in the filing of writ petition No. 11053 of  1996 by the appellants in these appeals in the High  Court of Judicature at Madras.

8. In order to appreciate the cause of dispute the  provisions of Regulation 9 of the MMWSS Board Employees  (Leave) Regulations, 1978, as amended by the Board in  its Resolution dated 27th February, 1995, is reproduced  hereinbelow:-

Existing Provision  (After amendment earlier) Permanent provision (i)     The existing Regulation 9  on Study leave will be retained  and shall be applicable to  employees of the Board other  than Engineers.  Insert words  \023(I) for Board Personnel \026  Other than Engineers \023below the  words \023Study Leave\024.

(ii)    Insert the following as  Clause II below the existing  Regulation 9 numbered Clause 1  as above.

(II) FOR BOARD\022S ENGINEERS: (a)     Eligibility. (i)     A graduate Degree in  Engineering (in any  discipline).

(ii) Should have completed  minimum 5 years of service.

(iii) Should have at least 15  years of remaining service.

(b) Facilities: i)      Study leave at half pay  for maximum of 30 months during  the whole career for higher  studies leading to a Post  Graduate degree from a  University recognised by UGC.

ii)     Seniority will be  protected. However, no Earned  Leave will accrue during the  study leave period.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

(c) Recognition of Post  Graduate qualification acquired  while in Service.  Once a  candidate acquired a Ist Class  Post Graduate to Engineering  qualification he will get two  years extra weightage in terms  of Seniority which will be  counted for elevation.  If he  acquire a second class post  graduate Engineering  qualification, he will get one  year\022s extra weightage for this  purpose if he does not qualify  after availing study leave) the  entire salary drawn during the  study leave period will be  recovered.     

d) Miscellaneous:- An eligible candidate whose  application had been sent with  prior permission of the Board  and has been accepted by the  University should execute a  Board, before he joins the  University to serve the Board  for a minimum period of five  years on his rejoining service  after study leave.  If he wants  to quite within this period, he  should refund the expenses  incurred by Board on him during  his study period.  The  candidates will be permitted to  draw stipend or allowance  granted by the institution in  addition to the leave salary.

(9) STUDY LEAVE

Study leave on half pay  may be granted at the  discretion of the Board  to staff in pay scales  to minimum of which is  Rs.2,000/- or more who  desire to undergo a  special course of higher  studies or specialised  training in a  professional and  technical subject having  a direct and close  connection with their  duty,

Study leave is not  admissible for pursuit  of academic courses  unrelated to the  employees work.   The  maximum study leave  admissible will be 24  months during the entire

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

service of an employees  and it may be granted up  to 18 months at any one  time.  Before proceeding  on study leave, an  employees must furnish  and undertaking to the  Board for not less than  five years after his  return from leave.

If the Board considers  that the course of study  or training for  attending for which  study leave is granted,  is of particular  relevance to an employee  fro his efficient  functioning it may  permit such employees to  draw full pay for the  entire period of his  leave.

The amendment will also apply to those who are already  undergoing the advance study.                                                                  (Emphasis supplied)                 (BY ORDER)               R. Ramalingam                         Secretary-cum-General Manager\024

9.   The case as made out in the writ petition is that  having made certain promises by the amendment effected  in 1993, the Board was not competent to resile from such  promises as far as the writ petitioners and other  candidates who had acted on the basis of such promises  were concerned.   The relevant portion of the amendment  made to Regulation 9 in 1993 is with regard to the  inducement that a candidate who took advantage of the  amended provisions and acquired First Class in Post  Graduate Engineering Qualification would be given two  years\022 extra weightage in terms of seniority, which  would be counted for the purpose of promotion.  If he  acquired a second Class in Post Graduate Engineering  qualification he would get one year\022s extra weightage  for the same purpose.   The said benefit was sought to  be withdrawn by the subsequent amendment of 1995 and it  was specifically stipulated that the amendment would  also apply to those who were already undergoing the  advance study, giving rise to the disputes, which  resulted in the filing of the writ petition.

10.     The writ petition was allowed by the learned  Single Judge of the Madras High Court by his Judgment  and Order dated 4th January, 1999 and the impugned order  of 10th March, 1995, was quashed.   The first respondent  Board was directed to act in accordance with the  proceedings dated 29th April, 1993, by giving the benefit  of seniority and other benefits to the writ petitioners  within a period of two months from the date of receipt  of the copy of the order.

11. Two appeals were filed from the Judgment of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal No. 104 of 1999 was  filed by the additional respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Writ  Appeal No. 204 of 1999 was filed by a Post-Graduate  Engineer who was affected by the decision of the learned  Single Judge.

12. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court reversed  the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge by its Judgment  dated 19th January, 2000, against which two appeals were  preferred by the appellants herein who were the writ  petitioners before the learned Single Judge.

13.     Appearing for the appellants, Mr.T.L.V. Iyer,  senior advocate, submitted that since the appellants had  acted on the basis of the promise held out by the  amended Regulations and had applied for leave and had  also obtained admission in various colleges to acquire a  post graduate engineering qualification, the respondents  were estopped from denying them the incentives which had  been offered earlier by applying the amended Regulations  of 1995 to them as well.  Mr. Iyer also urged that the  appellants, or at least some of them, may not have opted  for going on leave to obtain higher qualifications if  the benefit of additional weightage in terms of  seniority had not been offered as an incentive. Since  the appellants had already acted on the basis of the  promise held out by the amended Leave Regulations of  1993, the subsequently amended Leave Regulations of 1995  could not be made applicable in their case as has been  done by incorporating the following rider to the  amendment of 1995, namely, \023the amendment will also  apply to those who are already undergoing the advance  study\024. 14.     Coupled with his aforesaid submission regarding  promissory estoppel, Mr. Iyer urged that Rules generally  operate prospectively and not retrospectively, as has  been sought to be done in the instant case.

15.     In support of his aforesaid contention Mr. Iyer,  referred to the decision of this Court in T.R. Kapoor &  ors. vs. State of Haryana 1986 (Suppl.) SCC 584, wherein  this Court held that since right to be considered for  promotion is a condition of service, benefits acquired  under Rules made under the proviso to Article 309  regarding qualifications for promotion could not be  taken away retrospectively by an amendment to the  disadvantage of a Government servant. It was also  emphasised that although under the proviso to Article  309 the Rules could be amended retrospectively, benefits  already acquired under the existing Rules could not be  taken away. Mr. Iyer also referred to the decision of  this Court in P.D.Aggarwal and others vs. State of U.P.  and others (1987) 3 SCC 622, where similar views were  expressed and it was held that a vested right could not  be taken away by retrospective amendment of statutory  Rules arbitrarily and unreasonably.  In addition it was  observed that subordinate legislation in the nature of  legislative instructions could not supersede or amend  statutory Rules of service.

16      On his submission relating to the doctrine of  promissory estoppel Mr. Iyer relied on the decision of  this Court in Surya Narain Yadav and others vs. Bihar  State Electricity Board and others, AIR 1985 SC 941,  wherein while considering the said doctrine, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

consistent view of this Court from Union of India vs.  M/s Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. (1968) 2 SCR 366 to the  M.P. Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh  (1979) 2 SCC 409, was reiterated. Mr. Iyer emphasised  the observations made in the M.P. Sugar Mill case  (supra) to the effect that the doctrine of promissory  estoppel is not really based on the principle of  estoppel but it is a doctrine evolved by equity in order  to prevent injustice and it can be the basis of a cause  of action.   17.     In this regard reference was also made to the  decision of this Court in Sharma Transport vs.  Government of A.P. (2002) 2 SCC 188, wherein it was  reiterated that the doctrine of promissory estoppel had  been evolved by the Courts on the principles of equity  to avoid injustice and that it was neither in the realm  of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. Its object is  to interpose equity shorn of its form to mitigate the  rigour of strict law.

18.     The last decision on this issue relied upon by Mr.  Iyer was that of this Court in State of Punjab vs.  Nestle India Ltd. and another (2004) 6 SCC 465, which  has also dealt with the doctrine of promissory estoppel  in extenso and the views expressed earlier, and in  particular in the M.P. Sugar Mill case (supra) and the  Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Ulhasnagar  Municipal Council (1970) 1 SCC 582, were re-emphasised.

19.     Mr. Iyer submitted that whatever the circumstances  which prompted the authorities to bring about the  amendment of 1995 might have been, the same could only  be given prospective effect and could not be made  applicable with retrospective effect so as to prejudice  the appellants and deprive them of the benefit which had  accrued to them under the 1993 amendment.  20.     Appearing for the respondent-Board, Mr.  Krishnamurthy strongly opposed the submissions made on  behalf of the appellants. He contended that there was no  occasion to apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel to  the facts of the instant case, since despite the promise  held out in the amended Regulations of 1993, no actual  benefit had accrued to the appellants who were yet to  acquire the post-graduation degree which would entitle  them to the benefits promised in the amended Regulation  of 1993.  According to Mr. Krishnamurthy, the benefit of  accelerated promotion was to accrue only upon  acquisition of the post-graduate qualification and the  amendments effected by the 1993 Regulation were rendered  null and void before such qualification could be  acquired by the appellants. Mr. Krishnamurthy submitted   that if any of the candidates had acquired the post- graduate qualification on the basis of the amended  Regulations of 1993, prior to the amendment effected in  1995,  such candidate would stand outside the operation  of the amended Regulations of 1995.  21.     Mr. Krishnamurthy contended that soon after the  Regulations were amended in 1993 various objections were  raised from officers within the cadre who had already  acquired  the post-graduate degree either  at the time  of entry into service or soon thereafter and who were  senior to the appellants in service. It was their stand  that since the amended Regulations of 1993 had no  application to them the candidates who took advantage of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

the promise of accelerated seniority would become senior  to them despite the fact that they had acquired the  post-graduate qualification long before those who  acquired such qualification subsequently on the basis of  the amended Regulations of 1993.  It was urged that  finding such objections to be reasonable and of  considerable import, the respondents realised that the  amendment effected in 1993 would prove to be inequitable  and accordingly a decision was taken to restore the  position prior to the 1993 amendment.  Mr. Krishnamurthy  submitted that giving effect to the amended Regulations  of 1993 would be highly inequitable and would cause  injustice to many employees for no fault of theirs. Mr.  Krishnamurthy submitted that a similar problem as that  in the instant case had arisen in the case of Bishun  Narain Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others   (1965) 1 SCR 693, which was decided by a Constitution  Bench. In the said case, this Court was dealing with a  situation where owing to the upward revision of the age  of retirement some Government servants continued to  enjoy the benefit of the higher age limit of retirement  depriving others of such opportunities as they had  retired earlier.  Considering the questions formulated  for a decision in the said case this Court had to  consider whether the change in the rule of retirement  resulted in inequality between public servants in the  matter of retirement, although it was ultimately held  that the notification on which reliance had been placed  to prove discrimination was not really discriminatory,  as it had treated all public servants alike and fixed  31st December, 1961 as the date of retirement for those  who had completed 55 years but not 58 years up to 31st  December, 1961. 22      Mr. Krishnamurthy lastly contended that the 1978  Regulations were comprehensive in nature and separate  provisions had been included therein with regard to  promotion, seniority and leave.  He pointed out that the  General Service Regulations of 1978, inter alia,  provided for recruitment, postings, seniority and  promotion.  Part IV of the said Regulations provided for  seniority and promotion.   It was urged that the said  Regulations did not provide for leave for which separate  regulations, namely, Leave Regulations were framed in  1978.   In fact, in the instant appeals it is Rule 9 of  the said Leave Regulations which is under consideration.

23.     Mr. Krishnamurthy submitted that Rule 9 of the  Leave Regulations make provision for \023study leave\024 only  and had been mistakenly amended to alter the seniority  and promotion rules for which provision had been made  under the General Regulations.  It was urged that the  said amendment of the seniority and promotion rules,  which adversely affected the seniority and promotional  chances of others in the same cadre, that had given rise  to serious objections and had caused a rethink on  account of the apparent inequity and the subsequent  amendment of the Leave Regulations in 1995.

24.     Also referring to Rule 3 of the Leave Regulations,  Mr. Krishnamurthy pointed that the said rule  specifically dealt with \023Earned Leave\024, but Rules 3, 21  and 22 had not been amended though changes therein had  been effected by amending Rule 9 that touched upon the  said rules which was subsequently realised by the Board  prompting the amendment of 1995.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

25.     Mr. Krishnamurthy urged that no cogent ground had  been made out for interference by this Court with the  order of the Division Bench of the High Court impugned  in these appeals.

26.     While adopting Mr. Krishnamurthy\022s submissions, Mr.  Guru Krishna Kumar, learned advocate appearing for some  of the respondents, added a new dimension to Mr.  Krishnamurthy\022s submissions by urging that it had been  well settled that a mere chance of promotion does not  become a service condition and is neither a vested right  nor an accrued right which could be enforced under the  doctrine of promissory estoppel.  He reiterated Mr.  Krishnamurthy\022s contention that the amendments to the  1993 Regulations were effected at a point of time when  the appellants could only hope to be promoted on the  basis of the Regulations of 1993 but that no right had  been vested in them so as to attract the law as laid  down in this regard in the various decisions cited on  behalf of the appellants. It was contended that except  for the portion relating to elevated seniority, all the  other portions of the Regulations of 1993, as amended,  had been retained in the 1995 amendment.  He also  reiterated that such amendment had become necessary to  prevent injustice between persons of the same cadre on  account of the inequitable nature of accelerated  promotion under the 1993 Regulations as amended.

27.     Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar pointed out that in order to  prevent injustice to those employees who had acted in  terms of the promise contained in the 1993 Regulations  as amended, the amendment of 1995 provided for full  benefit of salary and allowances to such candidates even  after they acquired the higher qualifications in terms  of the 1993 Regulations. It was further urged that the  Board took sufficient pains to balance the equities so  that the persons in the same cadre were not treated as  unequals.

28.     Also relying on the decision of this Court in T.R.  Kapoor\022s case (supra) Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar submitted  that while considering the question of the Government\022s  power to amend service rules retrospectively under the  proviso to Article 309 it was also held that a vested  right which had been conferred by the rules could not be  taken away by retrospective amendment, but while any  rule which affects the right of a person to be  considered for promotion is a condition of service, mere  chance of promotion may not be.

29.     Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar then referred to the  decision of this Court in State Bank\022s Staff Union  (Madras Circle) vs. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC  584, in support of his contention that even if in  certain exigencies amendments had to be effected in the  statutory enactments and rules with retrospective  operation which affected the rights of some of the  employees, the same could not be said to be violative  either of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution  and was within the legislative competence of the  legislature and the rule-making authorities.

30.     Reliance was also placed on Bannari Amman Sugars  Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 625,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

for the proposition that in dealing with the  applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel  relating to withdrawal of benefits, the Court has to  consider all aspects including the result sought to be  achieved and the public good at large keeping in mind  the fundamental principles of equity.  Once public  interest was accepted as the superior equity, individual  equity had to give way to such public equity.

31.      Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar lastly referred to the  decision of this Court in Zile Singh vs. State of  Haryana & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 1, wherein it had been  observed that the general rule of retrospective  operation of statutes was that every statute is  prospective unless there in an express or implied  intention to make it have retrospective operation.  Mr.  Guru Krishna Kumar urged that in the instant case such  an intention had been expressly stated in the amended  Regulations of 1995 itself.

32.     Mr. Naveen R. Nath, learned advocate, who appeared  for some of the other respondents, while adopting the  submissions made by Mr. Krishnamurthy and Mr. Guru  Krishna Kumar, submitted that since no right had vested  in the appellants during the period of study for higher  qualifications, their claims could not be based on the  doctrine of promissory estoppel but could at best  attract the doctrine of legitimate expectation which  could be based only on validly existing rules and  regulations and an existing right.

33.     On the facts as disclosed and the submissions made  on behalf of the respective parties the question which  emerges for decision in these appeals is whether having  held out certain benefits relating to grant of  accelerated seniority to the appellants on their  acquiring a post graduate qualification for which study  leave was also granted subject to certain conditions,  the respondents could withdraw the said benefits by  amending the relevant leave regulations and applying the  amended regulations to those who had already acted on  the basis of the benefits offered to them.

34.     As will be evident from what has been set out  hereinbefore, one of the main submissions advanced on  behalf of the respondents is that the amended  resolutions had not been given retrospective effect but  had been made applicable to those who were yet to  acquire the higher qualification which would have  entitled them to the benefits under the amended Leave  Regulations of 1993.   It has been contended that since  no right had accrued in favour of the appellants and  that they only had a mere chance of being given  accelerated seniority, at best they could have a  legitimate expectation of being given such accelerated  seniority, but, in no event, would the doctrine of  promissory estoppel apply to them.

35.     The submission that the amended Regulations of 1995  have not been given retrospective effect but had been  made applicable to those who were yet to acquire higher  qualifications, though attractive, cannot be accepted,  having regard to the fact that the appellants who had  acted on the basis of the incentive held out by the  amended 1993 Leave Regulations, would still be affected

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

adversely in view of the same.   The question is when  once the incentive had been extended could the same have  been withdrawn in the light of the objections raised by  other officers of the same cadre who had already  acquired the higher qualification but would be at a  disadvantage on account of the said incentive which  would not apply in their case.

36.     While the appellants have no doubt acquired a right  of accelerated seniority, in our view, such right cannot  be enforced against such persons who were senior to them  in the cadre and had already acquired the higher  qualification.  Such officers or some of them may be  rendered junior to the appellants once the benefit under  the amended 1993 Leave Regulations was extended to the  said juniors.   The Respondent authorities possibly did  not think of such a situation while amending the Leave  Regulations in 1993.  The situation that has now been  reached on account of such amendment in the Leave  Regulations of 1993 has created a wholly inequitable  situation so far as the other officers in the cadre who  were senior to the appellants and had also acquired the  higher qualification earlier than the appellants are  concerned. Since we cannot discard the claims of either  of the affected parties, we will have to balance the  equities between the two so that the amended Leave  Regulations of 1993 and 1995 can be construed  harmoniously so far as the two groups are concerned.

37.     Having regard to the above, it is not really  necessary for us to go into the question as to whether  the doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate  expectation would apply to the facts in issue in this  case.  We are not also required to decide the issue  raised by Mr. Krishnamurthy as to whether the service  conditions relating to seniority and promotion could  have been altered by way of amendment of the leave  rules. Having realized the above position, Mr. Iyer  appearing for the appellants had, in fact, in his usual  fairness, also conceded that a via-media may be arrived  at whereby the appellants were not denied the benefits  promised to them and at the same time the officers in  the cadre who were senior to them and had already  acquired the higher qualification, were not prejudiced  thereby.  

38.     As was observed in the M.P. Sugar Mill case  (supra) the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not  really based on the principle of estoppel but it is a  doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent  injustice.   The aforesaid view has been subsequently  reiterated in various other decisions of this Court such  as Sharma Transport (supra). In our view, it would be in  the fitness of things to follow the aforesaid principle  as laid down by this Court in the facts and  circumstances of the instant case.

39.     In our view, the interest of justice will be amply  served if, as submitted by Mr. Iyer, the balance in  equity is maintained so as to not to affect both the  aforesaid groups of officers in the same cadre.   We,  therefore, dispose of these appeals with the following  directions :

(a)     The respondent Board and its authorities

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

shall continue to apply the amended Leave  Regulations of 1993 to the appellants and once the  exercise under the said Regulations is completed  the subsequently amended provisions would  thereafter apply to the appellants. (b)     If the appellants, or any of them, obtain the  benefit of accelerated seniority by acquiring the  higher qualification, they will be placed  immediately below the last person who is senior to  them and have already acquired the higher  qualification before the appellants and stand to  be adversely affected by such accelerated  seniority.  (c)     Since by this order the provisions of the  amended Regulations of 1993 are to apply to the  appellants, they shall not be entitled to the  benefit of full pay during the period of \023study  leave\024 as provided for in the amended Regulations  of 1995 and they will be entitled to only half pay  as provided for in the amended Leave Regulations  of 1993. (d)     These directions will not apply to other  officers in the cadre to whom the amended Leave  Rules of 1993 had application and whose individual  cases have already been dealt with by the Board  and its authorities and they will continue to be  governed by such orders as may have been passed in  their individual cases.

40.  Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the  case, the parties will bear their own costs.