- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
V. Gangaram v. Regional Joint Director And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal by special leave arose from an order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 19-8-1996 in OA No. 2944 of 1993, which dismissed the appellant's petition.
The appellant was originally appointed as a Teacher/Headmaster in a private aided school on 9-11-1959 in the pay scale of Rs 45-120. After passing the Secondary Grade Degree Training Examination in 1967, he was granted the SGBT scale of Rs 80-150 with effect from 1-12-1967. As he acquired additional qualifications (BA, MA, B.Ed, M.Ed), the authorities granted revisions in pay scale and advance increments corresponding to the qualifications.
Proceedings were later initiated to recover amounts already paid, on the premise that the appellant was not entitled to more than two advance increments. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s challenge, leading to the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under the applicable Government Orders, the appellant was entitled to more than two advance increments for acquiring additional qualifications.
- Whether amounts paid as advance increments could be recovered, and if so, for what period and in what manner (including recovery from pension).
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court considered Government Order Ms. No. 928, Education Department (K), dated 13-9-1977, which envisaged additional increments linked to specified qualifications (one increment each for BA, B.Ed, MA/equivalent postgraduate degree, and M.Ed). The Court noted that the appellant was, at the relevant time, holding the post of Junior Lecturer, for which MA was the required qualification.
On that basis, the Court held that the appellant was entitled only to two additional increments, namely one for MA and one for M.Ed. The Court rejected the appellant’s successive claim to four increments.
The Court further held that the authorities had wrongly applied GOMs No. 928 and GOMs No. 266 (Finance and Planning) dated 17-11-1986, and examined the scope of the recovery notice, which was confined to recovery of arrears paid from 1985 onwards (the year in which the appellant was eligible to acquire additional qualifications for holding the post of lecturer).
Given that the Department itself had adopted the approach of limiting the recovery period, the Court directed that amounts paid prior to 1985 should not be recovered. However, the excess paid from 1985 onwards was held recoverable from the pension payable to the appellant. The Court added that instalments should be proportionately distributed so as not to cause undue hardship.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF: The appeal was disposed of with the holding that the appellant is entitled to only two advance increments (for MA and M.Ed), and not four increments as claimed.
As a consequence, the Court directed that arrears paid prior to 1985 shall not be recovered, while the excess amount paid from 1985 is liable to be recovered from the appellant’s pension, in proportionate instalments to avoid undue hardship. No costs were awarded. The opinion does not indicate that any new precedent was set beyond the directions given for the parties.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.
3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, made on 19-8-1996 in OA No. 2944 of 1993.
4. The appellant was originally appointed as a Teacher/Headmaster in a private aided school on 9-11-1959 in the scale of Rs 45-120. After his passing Secondary Grade Degree Training Examination in the year 1967, he was granted on 1-12-1967 SGBT scale of Rs 80-150 w.e.f the aforesaid date. In view of the fact that the appellant went on improving his qualifications by BA, MA, B.Ed and M.Ed, the authorities went 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. The impugned proceedings were issued to recover the said amount paid to him on the premise that he was not entitled to more than two advance increments. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
5. The Government in GOMs No. 928 Education Department (K) dated 13-9-1977 has envisaged the grant of the additional increment on the minimum qualifications prescribed for the relevant categories, as indicated below:
“(a) One increment for BA or equivalent Degree.
(b) One increment for B.Ed
(c) One increment for MA or equivalent postgraduate Degree.
(d) One increment for M.Ed”
6. Admittedly, he is now having the post of Junior Lecturer which requires the MA qualification and, therefore, he is only entitled to two additional increments, namely, for acquiring his MA and M.Ed qualifications. They have stated in the illustration as under:
“Sl. No. Category of post Revised scale of pay Qualificati-ons for the post Additional qualifications for eligibility to advance increments No. of advance increments allowed 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Trained Graduate Teachers Degree and (a) Postgraduate with B.Ed One increment Grade II/320-14 Degree in (b) Degree with B.Ed One increment Schell Asst. 460-15 580 Teaching (B.Ed) (c) Postgraduate with M.Ed Two increments
4. The additional financial coment (sic) involved to the management in the implementation of these orders will be considered for assessment of teaching grants due to the schools under GRANTS-IN-AID.”
7. On the basis thereof, the appellant is entitled to only two additional increments, namely, one increment for MA and thereafter one for M.Ed Under these circumstances, the authorities have wrongly applied the GOMs No. 928 and GOMs No. 266 Finance and Planning dated 17-11-1986. 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 seen that he is entitled to the revised scale of pay giving the additional increments on two qualifications, namely, MA 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 increments. He is not entitled to the four increments, as successively claimed. We hold that he is entitled to only two increments, as indicated above. Since the Department itself has adopted the above approach, we direct that arrears paid prior to 1985 are not to be recovered and excess amount from 1985 is liable to be recovered from the pension payable to the appellant. The instalment should be proportionately distributed so as not to cause any undue hardship.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Alert