STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.versusBADRINARAYAN ACHARYA ETC. ETC.

              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 con·ect.

        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.                        F

        Niraj Sharma for the Respondents.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Delay condoned.                                                            G

        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
    790                   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 Assi~tant Teachers, \Vere deputed
  al the Government expenses for obtaining higher qualification of gradua-
  tion etc. and in son1e case, for B.td. degree. They \Vere deputed in the
  ywr 1966 but on October 2, 1964 the Government had decided to depute
B
  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 incre-
  ments 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
F            costs and Govcrnn1ent servants deputed for training at Govern-
             ment 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.
G            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 cir-
       cumstances, we hold that the view of the Tribunal is dearly unsustainable
                                                                                   B
       in law.

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

       T.N.A.                                                 Appeals allowed .




....
 '