LexKRISHNA KANT TIWARI versus KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 361 KRISHNA KANT TIWARI v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 10239 of 2013) NOVEMBER 12, 2013 [H.L. GOKHALE AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] SERVICE LAW: A B Pay protection - Cut off date - Teacher in State c Government - Joining as primary teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 23. 7. 1987 and confirmed on 23.9.1989 -- Claim for protection of pay as per O.M. dated 7. 8. 1989 which was given effect from 1. 8. 1989 - Held: It is permissible for the Government to lay down the cut off date 0 from which the benefit would be available to the employees - - Once it is stated that the order takes effect from 1. 8. 1989, the clause will have to be given its plain meaning as it is drafted -- Therefore, the employees like the appellant who was in the State Government service earlier, will be entitled to pay E protection from that date i.e. 1. 8. 1989 -- He will, however, not get the pay protection prior to that date -- Interpreted this way, it will not amount to giving any retrospective effect to the Memorandum -- The last pay drawn by the claimant in State service as on 1. 8. 1989, directed to be protected with consequential service benefits - Government of India, F Department of Personnel and Training O.M. dated 7.8.1989. The appellant after rendering 12 years service as a teacher in the M.P. State Service, joined the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as a primary teacher on 23.9.1987. G He was confirmed on the said post on 23.9.1989. Meanwhile, the Order/Memorandum dated 7.8.1989 granting pay protection was issued by the Central 361 H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A Government, Department of Personnel & Training, which was to take effect from 1.8.1989. The claim of the appellant for his pay protection was declined by the respondents on the ground that he joined 8 the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 23.9.1987 and since the cut off date was 1.8.1989, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit. The Central Administrative Tribunal as also the High Court declined to interfere. c Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is permissible for the Government to lay down the cut off date from which the benefit would be available to the employees. However, in the instant case, the information received by the appellant under the Right 0 to Information Act, 2005 placed before this Court indicates that three teachers were given the benefit of pay fixation in spite of the fact that they had also joined before 1.8.1989. It is also relevant to note that the cases of persons who were in service in Central/State1 E Autonomous/PSUs during the period from 01101111i; !" 01/ 01/96, and were selected in KVS and applied for pay protection, were considered and their pay was protected. [para 6-7] [365-F-H; 366-A, D] 1.2 The Circular/Memorandum dated 7.8.1989 states F that the issue of pay protection of t'he candidates recruited through Public Sector Undertekings, etc. has been engaging the attention of the Government for quite some time. It further states that these orders take effect from the 1st day of the month in which the Office G Memorandum is issued i.e. 1.8.1989. Once it is stated that the order takes effect from 1.8.1989, the clause will have to be given its plain meaning as it is drafted. Therefore, the employees who were drawn from Public Sector Undertakings, like the appellant who was in the State H Government service earlier, will be entitled to pay KRISHNA KANT TIWARI v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA 363 SANGATHAN protection frolll that date i.e. 1.8.1989. He will, however, A not get the pay protection prior to that date. Interpreted this way, it will not amount to giving any retrospective effect to the Memorandum. [para 9] [366-H; 367-A-C] 1.3 The respondents are directed to correct the 8 service record of the appellant protecting his last drawn pay in the Madhya Pradesh service as on 1.8.1989 and give him the consequential service benefits also on that basis. [para 1 O] [367-D-E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. C 10239 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Bilaspur, Chattisgarh in Writ Petition No. 5343 of 1999. Sanjiv Jha, Braj Kishore Mishra, Aparna Jha, Abhishek Yadav for the Appellant. Yogmaya Agnihotri, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the D Respondents. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H.L. GOKHALE, J. 1. Leave gran
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.