V. GANGARAM versus THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1043 · Decided: 25-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

V. GANGARAM 
A 
v. 
THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR AND ORS. 
APRIL 25, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) 
B 
Service law : 
Advance increments for acquiring higher qualifications-Grant of 4 
increment~Subsequent proceedings to recover an-ears beyond two additional 
increment~Tribunal refusing to inteifere-On appeal held, he is entitled to C 
only two increments, and not four on the basis of his additional qualifications 
over and above the minimum required qualification for the post-However 
excess arrears paid prior to 1985 not to be recoveretl--Excess amount from 
1985 could be recovered from pension, in instalments. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3297 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.96 of the Andhra Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 2944 of 1993. 
D. Prakash Reddy and Mrs. D.B. Reddy for the Appellant. 
T. Anil Kumar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. -
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
D 
E 
F 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Andhra 
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, made on August 19, 1996 G 
in OA No. 2944/93. 
The appellant was originally appointed as a Teacher/Head Master in 
a Private aided School on November 9, 1959 in the scale of Rs. 45- 120. 
After his passing Secondary Grade Degree Training Examination in the 
year 1967, he was granted on December 1, 1967 SGBT scale of Rs. 80-150 H 
1043 
1044 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A w.e.f. the aforesaid date. In view of the fact that the appellant went on 
improving his qualifications for B.A., M.A., B.Ed. and M.Ed, the 
authorities \\'.ent on giving revision of the pay scale granting advance 
increments as and when he acquired the qualification on the pay-scale 
applicable at the relevant time. Impugned proceedings were issued to 
B recover the said amount paid to him on the premise that he was not entitled 
to the advance increments more than two. The Tribunal has dismissed the 
petition. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
The Government in G.O.Ms. No. 928 Education Department (K) 
dated September 13, 1977 has envisaged the grant of the additional incre-
C ment on th<! minimum qualifications prescribed for the relevant categories, 
as indicated below : 
"(a) One Increment for B.A. or equivalent degree. 
(b) One Increment for B.Ed. 
D 
(c) One Increment for M.A. or equivalent Post Graduate Degree. 
(d) One Increment for M.Ed." 
Admittedly, he is now having the post of Junior Lecturer which 
E requires the M.A. qualification and, therefore, he is only entitled to two 
additional increments, namely, for acquiring his M.A. and M.Ed. qualifica-
tions. They have stated in the illustration as under : 
SI. 
Category 
Revised 
Qualifi-
Additional 
No. of 
No. 
of post 
scale of pay 
cations for 
Qualifications for 
Advance 
post 
eligibility to 
Increments 
F 
Advance Increments 
allowed 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
2. 
Trained graduate 
Degree 
a) Post Graduate One 
teachers 
and 
with B.Ed. 
Increment 
G 
grade 11/320-14 
Degree in 
b) Degree with 
One 
Schell Asst. 460-15 
Teaching 
c) Post Graduate Increment 
580 
(B.Ed.) 
with M.Ed. 
Two 
Increment 
H 
4. The additional financial comment involved to the management 
V. GANGARAM v. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR 
1045 
in the implementation of these order will be considered for assess-
A 
ment of teaching grants due to the schools under GRANT-TN-
AID." 
On the basis thereof, the appellant is entitled to only two additional 
increments, namely, one increment for M.A. and thereafter one for M.Ed. 
Under these circumstances, the authorities have wrongly applied the B 
G.O.Ms. No. 928 and G.O.Ms. 266 Finance and Planning dated November 
17, 1986. While issuing the notice, it was confined to the question of 
recovery of the arrears paid to him from the year 1985, the year in which 
he is eligible to acquire additional qualifications for holding the post of 
Lecturer. Thus, it could be been that he is entitled to the revised scale of C 
pay giving the additional increments on two qualifications, namely, M.A. 
and M.Ed. and therefore, he is entitled to the computation of the scale of 
pay then applicable to him prior to the date of immediate month in which 
examination was conducted of the scale of pay plus two additional incre-
ments. He is not entitled to the four increments, as successively claimed. 
We hold that he is entitled only two increments, as indicated 

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