MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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