UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus R. SARANGAPANI AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 495 · Decided: 15-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, RUMA PAL · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
R. SARANGAPANI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
MARCH 15, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND MRS. RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Annual increment-Training period-Counting of for purpose of incre-
ment-:-Rules providing one year training for technical personnel and 3 months. 
training jor non-technical staff-Training period not counted for purpose of 
increment-Central Government O.Ms. dated 22.10.I990 and 3I.3.I992-
Providing that training period undergone by a selected person before formally 
taking over charge of the post would be taken into account for purpose of 
annual increment-Cut-off date fixed as I. I: I 986-Petitions filed before differ-
A 
B 
c 
ent Benches of Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the cut-off date-
D 
·Bangalore Bench allowing the claim-Similarly Jabalpur Bench and Chandigarh 
Bench allowing the benefit-But Madras Bench declining to grant relie.f-
Matter referred to Full Bench at Madras-Full Bench upholding the decision 
of Madras Bench and overruling decision of Bangalore Bench-Held, Full 
Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras rightly held Government 
E 
0.Ms. dated 22.JO.I990 and 3I.3.I992 valid-Cut-off date i.e. I.I.1986 is not 
discriminatory-Principles decided by the Full Bench would also be applied in 
respect of all employees of the department including those who went be.fore 
Tribunals at Jabalpur and Chandigarh-Extra increment given to employees, 
except those w.ho have retired, to be recovered-Constitution of India-Article 
I4. 
F 
Judgment-Conflicting decisions by different Benches of Central Admin-
istrative Tribunal-Matter referred to Full Bench of Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Madras-Held, in order to maintain uniformity, inspite of concession 
of counsel at different Benches, principles decided by the Full Bench would 
apply-Practice and Procedure-Decision based on concession of counsel-
Effect of 
In the department concerned of the Government of Indi~ training 
period for technical posts was one year and for non-technic:al posts it was 
three months. The training period was not treated as duty for the purpose 
495 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 2 S.C.R. 
of increments. Under FR 26, service on a post in a time scale would count 
for increment in that time scale. On a demand made by the staff in the 
National Council (JCM) it was observed that where training period was 
long as in the case of technical personnel, the employees concerned were 
put to perpetual disadvantage vis-a-vis the staff in non~t~chnical jobs who 
were recruited along with the technical staff in 'the same scale of pay. 
Keeping this in view, the Government issued 0.M. dated 22.10.1990 pro-
viding that if a selected person was required to undergo training before 
formally taking over charge of the post, the training period undergone by 
such personnel, whether on re; .;.aneration or stipend or otherwise, would 
be treated at par for the purpose of drawing emoluments. Initially the 
benefit of the O.M. was given only from 1.10.1990. On further demand of 
the staff in the JCM the matter was again considered, and by the Govern-
ment O.M. dated 31.3.1992, the benefit was allowed also to those govern~ 
ment servants who had undergone training OQ or after 1.1.1986. However, 
in such cases the benefit of counting the training period for pay was made 
admissible on notional basis from 1.1.1986 and on actual basis from 
1.10.1990. 
Applications were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, 
Bangalore Bench claiming that Technicians appointed prior to 1.1.1986 
should also be given the benefit of the Go:vernment O.Ms. dated 22.10.1990 
and 31.3.1992. The Tribunal allowed the applications holding that fixation 
of the date of increment as 1.1.1986 was discriminatory. Similar relief was 
granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench and the 
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. But when a contrary 
view was taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, a 
reference was made to a Full Bench of the Tribunal. The Full Bench of the 
Tribunal, by its judgment dated 22.1.1996, upheld the view of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and overruled the view taken by 
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. Appeals were 
filed before this· Court both by the Government as also by the affected 
technical employees. 
Allowing the appeals filed by the Government and dismissing those 

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