State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Badrinarayan Acharya etc. etc.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.9895 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.10.93 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore in T.A.No.3536 of 1988)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.10.93 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore in T.A.No.3536 of 1988)
Petitioner: State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Respondent: Badrinarayan Acharya etc. etc.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.9895 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.10.93 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore in T.A.No.3536 of 1988)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.10.93 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore in T.A.No.3536 of 1988)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & G.B.PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 22, 1996
Appearances:
Sakesh Kumar and S.K.Agnihotri, Advocates for the appellants.
Niraj Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Advance increment to employees going on training on Govt. expenses – Held Govt. order specific that those who had gone on training on government expense not entitled to advance increments as they had the benefit of pay and expenses – Further held that as order was passed on 22nd October 1964, the cut off date being date on which government took the decision is valid and Tribunal not justified in finding fault with the same.
Held:
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 had taken the decision, the given cut-off date is perfectly valid in law and no fault can be found. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. 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.3536/88 & 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 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 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 had taken the decision, the given cut-off date is perfectly valid in law and no fault can be found. It is then contended that since the respondents had gone on training to improve their qualifications, they are eligible for two advance increments.
4. It is seen that the order is explicit as under:
“As per Finance Department’s Memo 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 at 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 22.10.64 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.”
5. 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.
6. The appeals are accordingly allowed. T.As. stand dismissed. No costs.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. 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.3536/88 & 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 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 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 had taken the decision, the given cut-off date is perfectly valid in law and no fault can be found. It is then contended that since the respondents had gone on training to improve their qualifications, they are eligible for two advance increments.
4. It is seen that the order is explicit as under:
“As per Finance Department’s Memo 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 at 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 22.10.64 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.”
5. 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.
6. The appeals are accordingly allowed. T.As. stand dismissed. No costs.
