LexCOL. D.D. JOSHI AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
.. -. , ..
D
E
F
G
448
COL. b.D. JOSHI AND OTHERS
v.
UNION OF I"NDIA AND OTHERS
/
March I, 1983
[D.A. DESA1 AND V. BALAKRlsHNA ERADI, Ji.]
Ante~dating the com1nission-Meaning of-Army Instruction NO. 78/78
. dat~ 4th November 1978 prescribing on upward revision in the period.of benefit by
ante-dating, whether discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Const/ ..
·'/ution--Army lnst'ruction No. 78/78 clause (J) and Note appended there(o scope of
lnt~rpretation of Statutes-NeceSsary-party-Joinder of
1
.. i-..
•.
D.D. JOSHI V. UNION
449
HELD: 1. Reckoning .seniority ii;i service from a dee1ned date of com .. _
mission in respect of the officers with P.O. oualificatil1ns or previous service in_
Civil hospital etc. as prescribed in. the Anry Jrstructif'n is--styled as benefit.of-
ante-dating. [455 F-G]
'·
{
.
.
.
A
2.1. lf the Jan'guage ofa provision is clear, un!rnbiguous and·intelligibJe,
.
91
and does not admii of two meanings; tbe court is b6und to construe in its Ordi-
nary sense because it is Welt· recognised. that lat'!guage used speaks the mind and
reveals the _intention of the· framers. If the language of the statute is clear and
f
unambiguous and if two interpretations are not reB!Jonably possible it would be -
wrong to discard the plain meaning_ of the words used in order to meet p. possible
.~
iniustiee. In such a situation, it would_be impermissible to call nnraid atiy exter.,,..
nal aid of.construction· to find out the hidden meaning. The cardinal rule off . ·
construction of a statute is that it _should-be construed according to the intention
- C
~xpressed in the statute itself. [457 D-E]
,.•
\
Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Mfs. T. V. Sundaram lylngar (P)
'
Ltil. [1976] I S.C.C. 77@ p, 84-85; Capper v. Beldwin [1965] 2 .Q.B. 53@ 61,
ref•rred to.
•
2.2.' On a plajn grammatical construction of para 6 (a) (b) and (c) of·
Arf»y Instruction ~O. 74,_ of 76, it js clear ~t the bCnefit of ante-dating the t...
commission will be available-at the time of being comm\ssioned as a'"n officer
of· the Army Medical Corps i.e. at - the_ tilne of .~ppointment a_nd the quali- ·
ficatiOns must have- been acquired prior to- joi_niilg the AMC. The expres-
sions uafthe tiine of appointment" and "higher qualifications obtained -prior
fo appointment" provided a- terminus a quo for the eligibility of the benefit
when1he benefit of abte-dating can bo gnj0ted and claimed. [457 C-D]
!---
"!I
-
i- 2.3. The _object, ihe purpose and the intention_ und~;lying the provis·ions
waS to compensate for. the extra· time, money an~ energy spent in acquiritt.a post
gradoa(e qualification equipped with which the men enter serVice and this object,
purpose or h:itention uriderlying. _the provision'_ is clearly manifest in the language
u&ed in the rele:Vant "parag~aphs of the Army, Instiuetion bearing on the subject
by providing that eligibility f01'R:aitiin_g the benefit of S:nte-datii:ig the commission,
namely, having a post gractllate qualification· shall be taken into account at the
time of eoJering the service. Two pre-conditions have to. be fulfilled before the·
benefit can. be acquired i.e. (!) the candidate must have a post-graduate qualifi-
cation-obtained prior to appointment, and <Z> that such _qualificatiop- ·must have
been acquired and inuSi be available at the time of appointment. TberefOre, not,
only the language of t~e- relevant provision IeaVes no room for doubt 'but.the
object and intention underlying the provision clearly buttressed the meaning of
the provision. [458·F-H, 459 A] .
·
3.1. The enlarged period of ante-dating \he commi;sion introduced from ·
April 1;1978 and made admissible to only those ehtering on or after 1-4-78 cannot
be ~aid to be either violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitotlon. [463 D-E]
' . '
E
F
H
. ' II'·~ ,
'•'
.. ,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
450
SUPR8MB COURT REPORTS
(1983] 2 S.C.R.
3.2. An employer has a right to
grant incentive for attracting better
qualified persons to the serviČ offered by the empJoyer.
If the incentive is devi·
sed
with a
view to offering inducement to thoso wavering whether to enter a
certain service or not those who were already in service and had that benefit once,
cannot be heard to say that this new incentive should be retrospectively enforced
so as to give them the same benefit.
No incentive can be retrospective, though
conditions of service can be retrospectExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.