Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

Supreme Court Holds Government Order Restricting Advance Increments for Lecturers Not Applicable Retrospectively

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On May 16 , 2023 , In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled on the interpretation and retrospective applicability of government orders regarding advance increments for lecturers based on their qualifications. The Court held that a subsequent government order, which sought to limit the eligibility of certain lecturers for advance increments, cannot be applied retrospectively.

Supreme Court has clarified the applicability of government orders concerning advance increments for lecturers based on their qualifications. The Court ruled that a government order issued on March 29, 2001, which sought to modify the eligibility criteria for advance increments, cannot be applied retrospectively.

The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of government orders issued on December 21, 1999, and March 29, 2001. The orders provided for different levels of advance increments based on the qualifications of lecturers at the time of recruitment and subsequent promotions. The question before the Court was whether the subsequent government order could be applied retrospectively to lecturers who were already placed in the selection grade before its issuance.

After considering the arguments presented by both sides, the Court identified two main points for consideration. Firstly, it examined whether the subsequent government order was a clarification or a substantive amendment of the previous order. Secondly, it analyzed whether the subsequent order could be applied retrospectively to lecturers who had already received advance increments based on their qualifications.

The Court held that the subsequent government order, issued on March 29, 2001, was not merely a clarification but a substantive amendment. It restricted the eligibility of lecturers who had already received advance increments for holding a Ph.D. degree at the time of recruitment from receiving additional increments upon placement in the selection grade. The Court emphasized that such an amendment, which withdraws a benefit not anticipated under the previous scheme, cannot be given retrospective effect.

Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgments of the High Court of Kerala. The Court held that lecturers who were placed in the selection grade before March 29, 2001, are entitled to all the incentives stipulated in the government order dated December 21, 1999. The judgment provides clarity on the interpretation and retrospective applicability of government orders concerning advance increments for lecturers.

Date of Judgment: 16th May, 2023

SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY  OF SANSKRIT & ORS.   vs  MANU & ANR.     

 

Similar News