2023 (5) TMI 1246 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms lecturers' entitlement to two advance increments under UGC Scheme

SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT & ORS Versus DR. MANU & ANR

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in a case regarding entitlement to two advance increments under the UGC Scheme. The Court ruled in ... Rejection of grant of two advance increments to Respondent No. 1 in terms of Clause 6.18 of the revised University Grants Commission (UGC) Scheme, 1998 and Government Order dated 21st December, 1999, on his placement as a Selection Grade Lecturer - whether the 29th March, 2001 was a clarification of Clauses 6.16 to 6.19 of the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999, or whether, it amended or modified the same? HELD THAT:- The Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 modifies the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999 by providing, inter-alia, that Lecturer would not be simultaneously eligible for the incentives under Clause 6.16 and 6.19 thereof. On a reading of the Government of Kerala’s Order dated 29th March, 2001, it is evident that teachers holding both M.Phil. degree and Ph.D. degree at the time of their entry in service are entitled to four advance increments which is as per the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999. However, the incentives specified in paragraphs 6.16 to 6.18 of the aforesaid Government Order are not to be given simultaneously. In other words, a teacher is not simultaneously eligible for the incentives as stated in paragraphs 6.18 and 6.19. Similarly, a teacher is not eligible for benefits specified in paragraphs 6.17 and 6.19 simultaneously. This would mean that this is the only modification made to the Order dated 21st December, 1999. In the State Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 also, paragraph 3 reiterates that teachers holding both M.Phil. degree and Ph.D. degrees at the time of their entry in service are entitled to four advance increments which is on par with paragraph 6.16 of the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999. Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the said Order categorically state that the incentive specified in paragraphs 6.16 to 6.18 and paragraphs 6.18 and 6.19 of the earlier Government Order would not be simultaneously applicable. Even paragraph 7 of the said Order states that the teacher is not eligible for the benefits specified both in paragraphs 6.17 and 6.19 simultaneously. Whether such a modification could be made applicable retrospectively., i.e., whether the Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 to the extent that it modifies the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999 would be applicable to those lecturers who had acquired a Ph.D. degree at the time of their recruitment, such as, Respondent No. 1, who were placed in the selection grade before 29th March, 2001? - HELD THAT:- The proposition of law that a clarificatory provision may be made applicable retrospectively is so well established that we do not wish to burden this judgment by referring to rulings in the same vein. However, it is necessary to dilate on the role of a clarification/explanation to a statute and how the same may be identified and distinguished from a substantive amendment. Reliance placed in UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS M/S MARTIN LOTTERY AGENCIES LTD. [2009 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was stated that when a new concept of tax is introduced so as to widen the net, the same cannot be said to be only clarificatory or declaratory and therefore be made applicable retrospectively, even though such a tax was introduced by way of an explanation to an existing provision. It was further held that even though an explanation begins with the expression “for removal of doubts,” so long as there was no vagueness or ambiguity in the law prior to introduction of the explanation, the explanation could not be applied retrospectively by stating that it was only clarificatory. Thus, the subsequent Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 cannot be declared as a clarification and therefore be made applicable retrospectively. The said order has substantively modified the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999 to the extent of stating that teachers who had already got the benefit of advance increments for having a Ph.D. degree, would not be eligible for advance increments at the time of their placement in the selection grade - Further, merely because the subsequent Government Order has been described as a clarification/explanation or is said to have been issued following a clarification that was sought in that regard, the Court is not bound to accept that the said order is only clarificatory in nature. Thus, lecturers such as Respondent No. 1 who were placed in the selection grade before 29th March, 2001 would be entitled to all the incentives stipulated in the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999 - appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to two advance increments under Clause 6.18 of the UGC Scheme.2. Retrospective application of the Government Order dated 29th March, 2001.Summary:Issue 1: Entitlement to Two Advance IncrementsThe Appellant-University challenged the High Court's decision directing it to grant two advance increments to Respondent No. 1, a Selection Grade Lecturer, under Clause 6.18 of the UGC Scheme, 1998. The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court ruled in favor of Respondent No. 1, stating that the increments were due as per the original Government Order dated 21st December, 1999, which allowed such increments for Ph.D. holders at the time of their placement in the selection grade.Issue 2: Retrospective Application of Government OrderThe Appellant-University argued that the subsequent Government Order dated 29th March, 2001, which restricted the eligibility for advance increments, should apply retrospectively. The High Court rejected this argument, noting that the subsequent order was not explicitly retrospective and should not affect vested rights. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the 29th March, 2001 order was a substantial amendment rather than a mere clarification and could not be applied retrospectively. The Court emphasized that a clarificatory amendment should not withdraw anticipated benefits or impose new burdens retrospectively.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgments. Lecturers placed in the selection grade before 29th March, 2001, are entitled to the increments as per the original Government Order dated 21st December, 1999. The subsequent order was deemed a substantive amendment and not applicable retrospectively.