Service Law – Respondent No.1 joined the service of the Appellant-University in July 1999 as a Lecturer – He was placed in the senior scale and granted four advance increments by virtue of Cl 6.16 of the UGC Scheme dtd.21.12.1999 which provided that candidates who had Ph.D. degree at the time of recruitment as lecturers would be eligible for four advance increments – Later, Respondent No.1 was placed as a Selection Grade Lecturer however, while fixing the pay, two advance increments payable on placement of a Lecturer holding a Ph.D. degree as a Selection Grade Lecturer, as per Clause 6.18 of the aforesaid UGC Scheme were not granted in view of Government Order (G.O.) dtd. 29.03.2001 – Writ petition filed – Appellant was directed to pay Respondent No.1, two advance increments in terms of Cl 6.18 of the G.O. dtd.21.12.1999 – Held: A Lecturer who had a Ph.D. degree at the time of recruitment was entitled to six advance increments on being placed in the selection grade, as stipulated u/cl 6.16 and 6.18 of the G.O dtd. 21.12.1999 – The number of advance increments that accrued to such a Lecturer on being placed in the selection grade was reduced to four vide G.O dtd.29.03.2001 by providing that a teacher who had got the benefit of advance increments by virtue of having a Ph.D. degree at the time of recruitment, would not be eligible for advance increments on being placed in the selection grade – The benefit of increments on being placed in the selection grade was restricted to those lecturers who obtained a Ph.D. degree subsequent to their recruitment – Thus, the subsequent G.O dtd.29.03.2001 substantively modified the G.O dtd.21.12.1999 and therefore, cannot be declared as a clarification and be made applicable retrospectively – Merely because it was described as a clarification/explanation, the Court is not bound to accept that the said order is only clarificatory in nature – The benefit withdrawn was not anticipated under the previously existing scheme – Therefore, such an amendment cannot be given retrospective effect – Respondent No. 1 who was placed in the selection grade before 29.03.2001 entitled to all the incentives stipulated in the G.O dtd.21.12.1999 – Judgments of Single Judge and Division Bench affirmed – Interpretation of Statutes.
Interpretation of Statutes – Clarificatory/declaratory/explanatory provision vis-à-vis a substantive amendment – Operation of, if retrospective – Principles of interpretation – Discussed – Service Law.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC); Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC); Bihta Cooperative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. vs. Bank of Bihar A.I.R. 1967 SC 389 : [1967] SCR 848; Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (2007) 289 ITR 83 (SC); Union of India vs. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. (2009) 12 SCC 209 : [2009] 7 SCR 946 – relied on. Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora vs. State of Haryana 1984 (3) SCC
281 : [1984] 3 SCR 623; Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 1 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 272;
Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 9 SCC 622 : [2008] 12 SCR 179; State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Prasad Verma (Dead) through LRs (2017) 5 SCC 665 : [2017] 2 SCR 342; S. Sundaram Pillai vs. V.R. Pattabiraman A.I.R. 1985 SC 582 : [1985] 2 SCR 643 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.