STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. versus P.V. NEELAKANDAN NAIR AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 426 · Decided: 11-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
-C 
ST ATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
v. 
P.V. NEELAKANDAN NAIR AND ORS. 
JULY II, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Kera/a Education Rules, 1959-Chapter XIV(A) Rule 62-Kerala 
Service Rules-Rule 60(c)-Pay Revision-Benefit of-Entitlement of-To 
teachers continuing in service after superannuation by virtue of Rule 62-
Held: Such teachers are entitled to the benefit of revision-Rule 60(c) denies 
benefit of incre1J1ent and promotion which is conceptually different from 
revision-Revision cannot be read into the provision uls. 60(c)-Court cannot 
D read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous-
A casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court except in the case of clear 
necessity and when reason for it is found in the statute itself-Interpretation 
of Statutes. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Object of-Held: ls to ascertain the intention 
E of the legislature enacting it. 
Maxim: 
"Ad ca quae fi·equentius accidund Jura adaplantur"-Meaning of 
p 
Words and Phrases: 
'increment' and 'revision '-Meaning of in the context of Service Law. 
The questions for consideration in this case was whether teachers 
superannuating during a particular academic year but continuing in service 
G by virtue of Rule 62 of Chapter XIV(A) ofKerala Education Rules, 1959 are 
entitled to the benefit of pay revision coming into effect during such extended 
period. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
H 
426 
STATEOFKERALAv. P.V.NEELAKANDANNAIR 
427 
HELD: 1. A civil servant retires under the applicable rules in the A 
afterno-0n of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 55 years. 
Similarly a teacher is normally to retire on completing the age of 55 years. 
But in the specifically prescribed cases the date of retirement is postponed 
"till the last day of month in which the academic year ends" so that the 
education of the students is not disturbed during the academic year. The 
legislature has denied the benefit of increment and promotion during the B 
extended period. There is no scope for reading into the provision the benefits 
of pay revision. "Increment" has a definite concept in service laws. It is 
conceptually different from revision of pay scale. "Increment" is an increase 
or addition on a fixed scale; it is a regular increase in salary on such a scale. 
Under the Labour and Industrial Laws, an "increment" is in the same scale. C 
A promotion involves going to a higher grade. The pay of an employee is 
generally fixed with reference to a pay scale. On the other hand, in the case 
of revision, the pay scale is revised which may incidentally result into 
increment. Rule 60(c) does not refer to pay revisions which is conceptually 
different from annual increments within the prescribed pay scale. Therefore, 
entitlement of the concerned teachers for the benefits of pay revision cannot 
be doµbted. (435-G, H; 436-A-B-C) 
State Bank of India v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour 
Court, Dhanbad and Anr., (1972] 3 SCC 595, relied on. 
2.1. The expression "increment" cannot be read as "the enhanced, 
amount received or receivable due to pay revision". The Court cannot read 
anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute 
D 
E 
is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute is the 
determinative factor of legislative intent Words and phrases are symbols that 
stimulate mental references to referents. The object of interpreting a statute F 
is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature enacting it. The intention of 
the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which 
means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has 
not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support, 
addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as G 
meaningless has to be avoided. Courts, cannot aid the Legislatures' defective 
phrasing of an Act. It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words 
into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. Rules of interpretation 
do not permit Courts to do so, unless the provision as it stands is meaningless 
or of doubtful meaning. Courts are not entitled to read words into an Act of 
Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners H 
428 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A of the Act itself. (432-E, F, G; 433-A-C] 
Institute of Chartered Account

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.