Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee 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.     

 

Latest Legal News