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

Citation: [2023] 7 S.C.R. 366 · Decided: 16-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT &
ORS.
v.
DR. MANU & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3752 of 2023)
MAY 16, 2023
[K. M. JOSEPH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Respondent No.1 joined the service of the
Appellant-University in July 1999 as a Lecturer – He was placed in
the senior scale and granted four advance increments by virtue of
Cl 6.16 of the UGC Scheme dtd.21.12.1999 which provided that
candidates who had Ph.D. degree at the time of recruitment as
lecturers would be eligible for four advance increments – Later,
Respondent No.1 was placed as a Selection Grade Lecturer however,
while fixing the pay, two advance increments payable on placement
of a Lecturer holding a Ph.D. degree as a Selection Grade Lecturer,
as per Clause 6.18 of the aforesaid UGC Scheme were not granted
in view of Government Order (G.O.) dtd. 29.03.2001 – Writ petition
filed – Appellant was directed to pay Respondent No.1, two advance
increments in terms of Cl 6.18 of the G.O. dtd.21.12.1999 – Held: A
Lecturer who had a Ph.D. degree at the time of recruitment was
entitled to six advance increments on being placed in the selection
grade, as stipulated u/cl 6.16 and 6.18 of the G.O dtd. 21.12.1999
– The number of advance increments that accrued to such a Lecturer
on being placed in the selection grade was reduced to four vide
G.O dtd.29.03.2001 by providing that a teacher who had got the
benefit of advance increments by virtue of having a Ph.D. degree
at the time of recruitment, would not be eligible for advance
increments on being placed in the selection grade – The benefit of
increments on being placed in the selection grade was restricted to
those lecturers who obtained a Ph.D. degree subsequent to their
recruitment – Thus, the subsequent G.O dtd.29.03.2001 substantively
modified the G.O dtd.21.12.1999 and therefore, cannot be declared
as a clarification and be made applicable retrospectively – Merely
because it was described as a clarification/explanation, the Court
is not bound to accept that the said order is only clarificatory in
nature – The benefit withdrawn was not anticipated under the
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 366
366
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
367
previously existing scheme – Therefore, such an amendment cannot
be given retrospective effect – Respondent No. 1 who was placed in
the selection grade before 29.03.2001 entitled to all the incentives
stipulated in the G.O dtd.21.12.1999 – Judgments of Single Judge
and Division Bench affirmed – Interpretation of Statutes.
Interpretation of Statutes – Clarificatory/declaratory/
explanatory provision vis-à-vis a substantive amendment – Operation
of, if retrospective – Principles of interpretation – Discussed – Service
Law.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay vs. Podar Cement
Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC); Allied Motors Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (1997) 224
ITR 677 (SC); Bihta Cooperative Development Cane
Marketing Union Ltd. vs. Bank of Bihar A.I.R. 1967
SC 389 : [1967] SCR 848; Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (2007) 289 ITR 83
(SC); Union of India vs. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd.
(2009) 12 SCC 209 : [2009] 7 SCR 946 – relied on.
Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora vs. State of Haryana 1984 (3) SCC
281 : [1984] 3 SCR 623; Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana
(2004) 8 SCC 1 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 272;
Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Gold Coin
Health Food Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 9 SCC 622 : [2008] 12
SCR 179; State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Prasad Verma
(Dead) through LRs (2017) 5 SCC 665 : [2017] 2 SCR
342; S. Sundaram Pillai vs. V.R. Pattabiraman A.I.R.
1985 SC 582 : [1985] 2 SCR 643 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1984] 3 SCR 623
referred to
Para 3.7
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 272
referred to
Para 4.7
[2008] 12 SCR 179
referred to
Para 4.7
[2017] 2 SCR 342
referred to
Para 4.7
[1985] 2 SCR 643
referred to
Para 4.8
[1967] SCR 848
relied on
Para 9.1
[2009] 7 SCR 946
relied on
Para 9.1
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT &
ORS. v. DR. MANU & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3752
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2016 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No. 254 of 2016.
P. V. Surendranath, Sr. Adv., Biju P Raman, Sawan Kumar Shukla,
Ms. Lekha Sudhakaran, Advs. for the Appellants.
Raghenth Basant, P. V. Dinesh, Bineesh K., Ms. Nida K., Ms.
Roopali Lakhotia, Ajay Krishna, C. K. Sasi, Abdulla Naseeh V T, Ms.
Meena K Poul
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.