http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BADRINARAYAN ACHARYA ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (5)777

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:    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

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

    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.