STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

A v.

BADRINARAYAN ACHARYA ETC. ETC.

JULY 22, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14.

Cut off date-Entitlement to advance increments--Fixing of cut off date fm-Validity of C

Se1vice Law-Assistallt Teachm-Depuiation for acquiring higher qualifications--Po/icy decision of Govemment regardin5Memo dated

22. llJ.1964-0ption given to teachers to go on training either at their own cost or at the expenses of the Govemment-Stipulation that from the date of decision viz. 22.10.1964 those deputed at Govemmellt expenses would not be D entitled for two advance increments--Held vali~Re; pondents deputed for acquiring higher qualifications at Govenunent expenses held not enlitled for advance increnients-Tribunal's view that in1position of cut off date was bad

in law held not conect.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9895 of E 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.10.93 of the Madhya Pradtsh Administrative Tribunal, Indore in T.A. No. 3536 of 1988.

Sakesh Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellants.

Niraj Sharma for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

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 H 789

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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 Assitant 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

B 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 C 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 qualifica- D tions either at their O\VIl 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.

E It is seen that the order is explicit as under :

"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 O\\'n 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 O\Vn cost and not at the cost of the government. 11

A reading thereof \vould clearly indicate that such of those in service H who ha<l gone on training to in1prove their qualifications at the Govern-

....

STATEv. BADRINARAYANACHARYA 791

ment expenses, would not be eligible for two advance increments while A 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.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. T.As. stand dismissed. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeals allowed .