Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a Government scheme granting two advance increments to Lower Division Clerks who passed a Hindi typewriting test. The respondent, Shakri Khan, was appointed prior to 1973. The Government prescribed July 30, 1973 as the last date for passing the test to become eligible for the increments. The respondent did not pass the test by that date but passed it in December 1979. He filed Original Application No. 323 of 1993 before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench, claiming the benefit on the basis of subsequent instructions dated April 20, 1974 and January 15, 1979. The Tribunal by order dated January 21, 1994 allowed the respondent's claim. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The State contended that the Government had the power to prescribe a cut-off date and that July 30, 1973 was a valid classification. The respondent argued that later instructions and the fact that new appointees after the cut-off date were not given increments implied that earlier appointees were entitled to the benefit. The Supreme Court agreed with the State. It held that the Government, having power to extend a benefit, also had power to put a cut-off date. The cut-off date of July 30, 1973 was a proper classification. Those who did not pass the test before that date, even if appointed earlier, were not eligible for the advance increments upon passing later. The Court rejected the respondent's implication argument, explaining that after the Government made typewriting a qualification for recruitment, the need to give additional increments to new appointees did not arise; incentive was relevant only for those appointed before typewriting was a qualification and who were given time to pass the test. The Court declared that only employees who passed the Hindi typewriting test by July 30, 1973 were entitled to two advance increments. However, because the State had not filed appeals against similar orders passed by the Tribunal in other cases, the Court directed that payments already made to the respondent should not be recovered. The law declared would apply to all pending cases and to any candidate approaching the court thereafter. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Incentive Increments - Cut-Off Date Classification - Government has the power to extend a benefit and equally the power to prescribe a cut-off date; fixing July 30, 1973 as the last date for passing the Hindi typewriting test for Lower Division Clerks was a proper classification - Employees appointed prior to that date but who passed the test after the cut-off date are not eligible for two advance increments - Held that the respondent, who passed the test in December 1979, was not entitled to the increments. B) Service Law - Recovery of Payments - Protective Direction - Since the State had not filed appeals against similar orders passed by the Tribunal, payments already made to the respondent were directed not to be recovered - The law declared would apply to all pending cases and future candidates - Held that the appeal was disposed of accordingly with no costs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee appointed prior to July 30, 1973, who passed the Hindi typewriting test in December 1979 after the prescribed cut-off date, was entitled to two advance increments under the Government scheme.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the cut-off date of July 30, 1973 was a proper classification. The respondent, having passed the Hindi typewriting test in December 1979, was not entitled to two advance increments. However, payments already made to the respondent were directed not to be recovered because the State had not filed appeals against similar orders. The law declared would apply to all pending cases and future candidates. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.
Law Points
- Government has power to extend benefit and also power to prescribe cut-off date
- cut-off date for passing Hindi typewriting test is proper classification
- employees appointed prior to cut-off date but passing test after are not eligible for advance increments
- no recovery of payments already made due to State not appealing similar orders
- law applies to all pending and future cases
