ivil Appeal No 785 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 63 1987 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No 1166 of 1981
Appellant in person
Dr YS Chitale and VB Joshi for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI J
This is an appeal by Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India from the Judgment of Bombay High Court dated 6th March 1987 in Writ Petition No 1166 of 1981
The appellant CD Tase joined the college run by Vidhya Prasarak Mandal Thane on June 15 1971 as a lectur er in the pay scale of Rs300 25 600 prescribed by the Uni versity Grants Commission pursuant to the recommendations made by the Second Pay Commission
By Government Resolution No USG 1167 U dated November 6 1967 the Government of Maharashtra had accepted in principle the Government of India scheme based on the recommendations of the University Grants Commission for improvement of salary scales of uni versity teachers and teachers in affiliated Arts Science Commerce and Secondary Training Colleges
Accordingly the Government of Maharashtra directed all the Universities in the State to implement the pay scales recommended by the Commission
The scales recommended were to take effect from April 1 1966
Three scales were recommended for lecturers namely Rs300 25 600 Lecturers Junior Scale Rs400 30 640 40 800 Lecturers Senior Scale and Rs700 40 1100 Senior Lecturers
The Universities in turn directed col leges affiliated to them to implement the recommendations accepted by the State of Maharashtra
The appellant s col lege was at the material time affiliated to the University of Pune
The Additional Director of Education Maharashtra State by his letter No S 95127 A 739 dated January 18 1968 addressed to the Principals of non Government Arts Science Commerce and ST Colleges in the State directed the colleges to implement the recommendations made by the Second Pay Commission as approved by the State of Maharashtra
The University in turn by its letter No PUStatF3A67 68236 dated February 7 1968 directed the Principals of all colleges to implement the new pay scales with effect from April 1 1966
Thus in the category of lecturers excluding Principals three scales as stated above were prescribed subject to the condition that the number of senior lecturers and lecturers senior scale was not to exceed 14th of the total strength of lecturers
It was left to the Universities to formulate norms which the lecturers must satisfy for being considered for the posts of senior lecturers andor lecturers senior scale as the case may be
The High Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant and his two companions Writ Petition No 1166 of 1981 observed There does not appear to be much dispute that if the report of the Second Pay Commission of University Grants Commission was implemented in letter and spirit the petitioners would have respectively qualified for the category of Senior Lecturers in the pay scale of Rs700 40 1100 on 2nd March 1974 15th June 1974 and 15th June 1975 respectively
 It is evident from the above observation of the High Court that the appellant was entitled to placement in the senior scale of Rs700 401100 with effect from June 15 1975
In the meantime sometime in 1978 a decision was taken to implement the Third Pay Commission Report prescribing a running scale of Rs700 1600 for teachers with effect from January 1 1973
All the Universities in the State were directed to implement the new scale of Rs700 1600 pre scribed for senior lecturers
This raised the question whether placement of teachers already made after January 1 1973 in the higher pre 1973 scales would be valid on the implementation of the revised scale wef January 1 1973
By Government Resolution No USG 117824585XXXII Cell dated June 27 1978 it was clarified that placement of teachers made in one of the higher pre 1973 scales of 400 800 and Rs700 1100 on or after January 1 1973 would be considered valid and protected subject to the prescribed conditions
The High Court points out that if the above clarification is accepted as correct the appellant would be entitled to placement in the high scale of Rs700 1100
However relying on the University of Pune s subse 740 quent letter of March 10 1978 whereby the college manage ments were directed to ignore the pay scales prescribed pursuant to the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission in the case of teachers who became entitled to the higher scale after January 1 1973 it was submitted before the High Court that since the new pay scale of Rs7001600 was made operative from January 1 1973 lecturers who were not given the benefit of the revised scale of Rs700 40 1100 could be fixed in the new scale of Rs700 1600 with effect from January 1 1973 as per the Circular No AffRecg193 of 1977 dated May 19 1977
This submission made on behalf of the University authorities found favour with the learned Judges of the High Court as they thought that there was nothing very inequitable  about the decision taken by the university authorities
The appellant who argued the case in person submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate the fact that the decision of the university authorities was highly prejudi cial to the appellant and others similarly situated as it resulted in substantial monetary loss
It must be realised that the decision to implement the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission wef January 1 1973 was taken some time in 1978
In the meantime several lecturers of affili ated colleges were placed in the higher scale of Rs700 1100
That is why it became necessary to seek a clarifica tion from the Government whether the placement allowed to such lecturers in the higher scale would be treated as valid having regard to the implementation of the new scale of Rs700 1600 wef
January 1 1973
As pointed out earlier the Government by their Resolution of June 27 1978 clari fied that such placement in the higher scale of Rs700 1100 was valid subject to the fulfilment of the prescribed condi tions
The placement of such lecturers in the higher scale of Rs700 1100 was therefore directed to be protected while bringing them on the revised scale of Rs700 1600
It fol lows that if the appellant had been placed in the higher scale of Rs700 1100 when he became entitled to it on June 15 1975 his pay would have been protected as per the clari fication while being placed in the revised scale of Rs700 1600
The appellant is therefore justified in making a grievance that merely because the college university au thorities did not place him in the higher scale of Rs7001100 wef June 15 1975 he cannot be made to suffer on the ground that he will get the benefit of two reports simultaneously if he is first placed on the scale of Rs700 1100 and thereafter brought on the scale of Rs700 1600
It is evident from the letter No BYGenl1981 82 dated January 28 1982 addressed to all the Principals of Arts Science and Commerce Colleges by the Administrative Officer of Higher Edu 741 cation Grants Bombay Region Bombay that the college au thorities were directed to furnish information in the pre scribed form in respect of teachers who were entitled to the benefit of the pre revised scales of Rs700 1100 and Rs400 800
The Principal of the college forwarded the information to the Administrative Officer under his letter ACC TNE2080 dated March 1315 1982 in the prescribed proforma which includes the name of the appellant as one of the persons entitled to the same benefit
We may incidental ly mention that his two companions in the High Court Dr MP Kendurkar and Professor N Krishnan were also included in the list of eligible lecturers entitled to the higher scale of Rs700 1100
The subsequent Resolution No USG 1178 16069219 UNI4 dated April 7 1983 issued by the State of Maharashtra also stipulates as under The question of placement of these teachers was therefore under consideration of Govern ment for sometime past
Government is now pleased to direct that the placement of only those teachers whose names were recommended for placement in the senior lecturers scale of ISS viz Rs 1100 and 400 800 to the universities by the respective colleges man agements prior to 4th October 1975 ie the date of issue of Government Resolution assign ing revised University Grants Commission recommended scales but their placement was not effected due to some reason or the other should be made with effect from the dates the placement is approved by the concerned Univer sities
 It is evident from the above decision that lecturers whose name were recommended for placement in the higher scale before October 4 1975 were entitled to such placement before being brought over to the revised scale of Rs 700 1600
The appellant was entitled to placement in the higher scale of Rs700 1600 wef
June 15 1975
The college authorities failed for no fault of the appellant and his companions to forward their names to the University in the prescribed proforma for reasons best known to them
To deny the benefit to which the appellant and his companions were entitled on account of the lapse on the part of the college authorities would be highly unfair and unjust
The High Court however took the view that there was nothing very inequitable  about the decision of the University to deny such placement to the appellant and his companions but it is obvious that if they had been granted placement on the due dates they would have been entitled to higher salary and allowances related to basic salary eg dearness allowance which is a certain percentage of basic 742 salary would have gone up
In addition they would have earned increments by the time they became entitled to the revised scale of Rs7001600
It is therefore obvious that the decision of the university not only appears to be ine quitable but also discriminatory inasmuch as it sought to treat equals as unequals by protecting those who had secured the placement and denying the same to others whose names the college managements had failed to forward in good time
We are therefore of the opinion that the appellant was enti tled to placement in the higher scale of Rs700 1100 before being brought over to the revised scale of Rs700 1600
For the above reasons we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated March 6 1987
We direct the respondents to grant the benefit of placement in the higher scale of Rs700 1100 to the appellant from the date he became entitled to the same ie June 15 1975 and thereafter fix his pay in the revised scale of Rs700 1600
The appellant will be entitled to the monetary benefit accruing to him on the implementation of the above directive which should be worked out and paid to him within three months from today
The appellant will also be entitled to cost from the University of Bombay which we quantify at Rs2500
Before we part we may mention that the two companions of the appellant who were writ petitioners in the High Court have not approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution but we find that they were similarly situated and were entitled to placement in the higher scale of Rs700 1600 we
L March 2 1974 and June 15 1975
We hope that the authorities will extend the same benefit to them also notwithstanding their failure to approach this Court perhaps on account of cost constraint
It would be highly unfair to deny to them the monetary benefits to which they are legally entitled
We do hope that the concerned authori ties will not drive them to another round of litigation
GN Appeal al lowed


Summary:
For the assessment year 1959 60 the Income Tax Officer disallowed the loss claimed by the Respondent assessee on the sale of certain shares to its allied concern on the grounds that the sale price was much below the market quota tion and that the motive behind the transactions was to set off the loss against the profits and hence the transactions were not genuine
On appeal by the assessee the Appellate Assistant Com missioner held that the losses on both the transactions cannot be held to be business losses
ion a further appeal by the assessee the Tribunal observed that there was nothing to show that the transac tions in question had anything to do with the control of the companies concerned
It also relied upon the circumstance that the sales were at the market rates or going rates and held that there was no question of making a bogus loss
Based on these facts and circumstances the Tribunal held that the losses in respect of the sales of the shares in question were liable to be allowed as business losses
639 The Commissioner of Income Tax made an application to the Tribunal for referring certain questions for the deter mination of the High Court
The Tribunal declined to refer the questions on the ground that they were not questions of law which deserved to be referred to the Court for determi nation
This order of the Tribunal was confirmed by the High Court
This appeal by special leave is against the said order of the High Court
Dismissing the appeal HELD 1
Where the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the loss incurred by the assessee in the sale of shares held by it was a trading loss and it is not the case of the Department that in arriving at its decision the Tribunal had taken into consideration any irrelevant material or failed to take into consideration any relevant material there is no room for interference by the court
It is well settled that the Tribunal is the final fact finding body
The ques tions whether a particular loss is a trading loss or a capital loss and whether the loss is genuine or bogus are primarily questions which have to be determined on the appreciation of facts
The findings of the Tribunal on these questions are not liable to be interfered with unless the Tribunal has taken into consideration any irrelevant materi al or has failed to take into consideration any relevant material or the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse in the sense that no reasonable person on the basis of the facts before the Tribunal could have come to the conclusion to which the Tribunal has come
645B D CIT Bihar  Orissa vs Dalmia Jain  Co Ltd  relied on
It is equally well settled that the decision of the Tribunal has not to be scrutinised sentence by sentence merely to find out whether all facts have been set out in detail by the Tribunal or whether some incidental fact which appears on record has not been noticed by the Tribunal in its judgment
If the court on a fair reading of the judg ment of the Tribunal finds that it has taken into account all relevant material and has not taken into account any irrelevant or impermissible material in basing its conclu sions the decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with unless of 640 course the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse 645DF 3
In the instant case the Tribunal has taken note of all the relevant circumstances which appear on record and which were referred to by the Departmental Representatives before the Tribunal
It has not taken into account any material which could he said to be irrelevant in arriving at its conclusions
In considering whether the shares of Bharat Starch  Chemicals Ltd and Greaves Cotton  Co Ltd were held by the assessee as stock in trade or as capital the Tribunal has taken into account the fact that the assessee was earlier treated by the Department as a dealer in shares that circumstances cannot he regarded as irrelevant
The decision arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be said to he perverse
645F H Karam Chand Thapar  Bros P Ltd vs Commissioner of Income tax Central Calcutta  re ferred to 4
It is not necessary for the Tribunal to state in its judgment specifically or in express words that it has taken into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances or has considered the totality of facts as if that were a magic formula if the judgment of the Tribunal shows that it has in fact done so there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal
646B C