Professors Denied Extra Increment Under Orissa Pay Rules; Appeals Allowed, Previous Judgments Overturned.

The SC held that Professors were not entitled to an additional increment under the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1985. It concluded that Rule 8(1)(a) and (b) addressed distinct scenarios, and the exception in Rule 8(1)(b) did not extend to Rule 8(1)(a). Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the prior judgments were set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Rules 8(1)(a) and (b) of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1985.
2. Entitlement of Professors to an additional increment under the revised pay scales.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of Rules 8(1)(a) and (b) of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1985:
The Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting Rules 8(1)(a) and (b) of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1985, framed u/a 309 of the Constitution of India. The respondents, who were Lecturers and Professors, contended that they were entitled to an additional increment as per Rule 8(1)(b) when their pay scales were revised. The Full Bench of the Orissa High Court had previously interpreted these rules to mean that the exception in Rule 8(1)(b) applied to both clauses (a) and (b), thus entitling the teachers to an additional increment.

2. Entitlement of Professors to an Additional Increment:
The respondents argued that the revised pay scales should include an additional increment as per Rule 8(1)(b). The Full Bench of the Orissa High Court supported this view, interpreting the rule as beneficent legislation. However, the Supreme Court found that Rule 8(1)(a) and (b) addressed different situations. Rule 8(1)(a) applied when the minimum of the revised scale was less than the existing emoluments, while Rule 8(1)(b) applied when there was no equivalent stage in the revised scale. The Court concluded that the exception clause in Rule 8(1)(b) did not apply to Rule 8(1)(a). Therefore, the Professors were only entitled to the minimum of the revised scale without any additional increment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that there was no ambiguity in Rule 8(1)(a) and that the Professors were only entitled to the minimum of the revised scale. The appeals were allowed, and the judgments under challenge were set aside. The Court emphasized that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be interpreted as written, without judicial modification. The principle of liberal interpretation for beneficent legislation was deemed inapplicable in this case.

---