Supreme Court Clarifies Advance Increments for Lecturers with PhDs: Sree Sankaracharya University vs. Dr. Manu (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 16th May, 2023

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a government order modifying the benefits of advance increments for lecturers be applied retrospectively? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and a lecturer, Dr. Manu. The core issue revolved around whether a lecturer, already holding a Ph.D. at the time of recruitment, is entitled to additional advance increments upon being placed in the selection grade, or if a subsequent government order could restrict this benefit. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with the opinion authored by Justice Nagarathna.

Case Background

Dr. Manu joined the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit as a Lecturer in the Hindi department on July 14, 1999. Prior to this, he had served as a Lecturer at Mahatma Gandhi Government Arts College, Mahe, Pondicherry, for over eleven years, from December 23, 1988, to July 13, 1999. On November 25, 2004, Dr. Manu was placed in the senior scale, effective from his initial joining date. He also received four advance increments due to holding a Ph.D. degree at the time of his recruitment, as per the University Grants Commission (UGC) Scheme of December 21, 1999. Later, on October 20, 2011, he was placed as a Selection Grade Lecturer, with a notional date of placement as December 22, 1999, and his pay was fixed on January 12, 2012. However, the university did not grant him two additional advance increments that were typically provided to lecturers with a Ph.D. upon their placement in the selection grade, as per Clause 6.18 of the UGC Scheme dated December 21, 1999.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Dr. Manu filed a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 28567 of 2012) before the High Court of Kerala, challenging the university’s orders that denied him two advance increments upon his placement as a Selection Grade Lecturer. The University argued that a subsequent Government Order dated March 29, 2001, clarified that teachers who had already received advance increments for holding a Ph.D. would not be eligible for additional increments when placed in the selection grade. The Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed Dr. Manu’s writ petition, directing the University to grant him two advance increments as per Clause 6.18 of the Government Order dated December 21, 1999. The University then appealed this decision, but the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge’s order. The High Court reasoned that the Government Order of March 29, 2001, could not be applied retrospectively to deny benefits that had already accrued to Dr. Manu.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following clauses of the Government Order No. G.O. (P) No. 171/99/H.Edn. dated December 21, 1999:

• Clause 6.16: “Four and two advance increments will be admissible to those who hold Ph.D. and M. Phil. degrees, respectively at the time of recruitment as Lecturers. Candidates with D.Litt./D.Sc. should be given benefit on par with Ph.D. and M.Litt. on par with M.Phil.”
• Clause 6.17: “One increment will be admissible to those teachers with M.Phil. who acquire Ph.D. within two years of recruitment.”
• Clause 6.18: “A Lecturer with Ph.D. will be eligible for two advance increments when she/he moves into Selection Grade/Reader.”
• Clause 6.19: “A teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when she/he acquires a Ph.D. degree in her/his service career.”

These clauses provide incentives for lecturers with higher qualifications. Clause 6.16 grants advance increments at the time of recruitment, while Clause 6.18 provides additional increments upon placement in the selection grade. The subsequent Government Order No. G.O.( P) No.44/2001/H.Edn. dated 29th March, 2001, modified these provisions. Specifically, it stated that teachers who had already received advance increments for holding a Ph.D. would not be eligible for further increments upon placement in the selection grade. The core legal issue is whether this subsequent order could be applied retrospectively to deny benefits that had already accrued under the original order of December 21, 1999.

Arguments

Appellant (University)’s Arguments:

• The University argued that Clauses 6.16 to 6.19 of the Government Order dated December 21, 1999, do not intend a double benefit for Ph.D. holders. They contended that the maximum number of advance increments a teacher with a Ph.D. could receive is four, regardless of whether they were granted at the time of recruitment or upon placement in the selection grade.
• The University submitted that the Government Order dated March 29, 2001, was a clarificatory order, not an amendment, and should therefore apply retrospectively. They argued that this order was issued to remove ambiguities in the implementation of the earlier order of December 21, 1999, and should be read as part of it.
• The University relied on the decisions in Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 8 SCC 1, Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 9 SCC 622, and State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Prasad Verma (Dead) through LRs, (2017) 5 SCC 665, to support the retrospective application of a clarificatory amendment.
• The University cited S. Sundaram Pillai vs. V.R. Pattabiraman, A.I.R. 1985 SC 582, to argue that an explanation to a statutory provision is meant to clarify ambiguities and should be applied retrospectively.

Respondent (Dr. Manu)’s Arguments:

• Dr. Manu argued that a combined reading of Clauses 6.16, 6.18, and 6.19 indicates that a lecturer with a Ph.D. at the time of recruitment is eligible for six advance increments: four at the time of recruitment and two more upon placement in the selection grade. He argued that these increments are effective at different phases of a lecturer’s career.
• Dr. Manu contended that the Government Order dated March 29, 2001, is a substantive modification/amendment, not a clarification, and therefore cannot be applied retrospectively. He argued that the order altered the meaning of Clauses 6.16, 6.18, and 6.19.
• Dr. Manu relied on Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora vs. State of Haryana, 1984 (3) SCC 281, to argue that an amendment cannot have retrospective effect unless expressly stated or by necessary implication. He also contended that applying the order retrospectively would withdraw vested rights.
• Dr. Manu submitted that the High Court correctly held that the order dated March 29, 2001, could not be applied retrospectively as it was not a clarificatory order.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court was right and justified in directing grant of two advance increments to Respondent No. 1 in terms of Clause 6.18 of the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999, on his placement as a Selection Grade Lecturer?
2. What order?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Clauses 6.16 to 6.19 of the Government Order No. G.O. (P) No. 171/99/H.Edn. dated 21st December, 1999: These clauses outline the advance increments for lecturers with Ph.D. and M.Phil. degrees.
• Government Order No. G.O.( P) No.44/2001/H.Edn. dated 29th March, 2001: This order modified the earlier order, stating that teachers who had already received advance increments for holding a Ph.D. would not be eligible for further increments upon placement in the selection grade.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished the cases cited by the University, such as Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 8 SCC 1, Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 9 SCC 622, and State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Prasad Verma (Dead) through LRs, (2017) 5 SCC 665, stating that they were not applicable as the Government Order dated March 29, 2001, was a substantive amendment and not a mere clarification.
• The Court accepted the principle laid down in Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora vs. State of Haryana, 1984 (3) SCC 281, that an amendment cannot have retrospective effect unless expressly stated, and applied it to the case.
• The Court relied upon Bihta Cooperative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. vs. Bank of Bihar, A.I.R. 1967 SC 389, Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, (2007) 289 ITR 83 (SC) and Union of India vs. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd., (2009) 12 SCC 209 to state that an explanation/clarification may not expand or alter the scope of the original provision and that merely describing a provision as an “Explanation” or a “clarification” is not decisive of its true meaning and import.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a clarificatory provision cannot withdraw a benefit that was already available under a previous order. The Court emphasized that the Government Order dated March 29, 2001, substantively modified the earlier order of December 21, 1999, by restricting the eligibility for advance increments. The Court also noted that the purpose of the original order was to incentivize and retain lecturers with higher qualifications by providing increments at different career stages. The Court held that the subsequent order could not be applied retrospectively to withdraw vested rights of lecturers who were already placed in the selection grade before March 29, 2001. The Court also highlighted that merely describing an order as a clarification does not make it so, and the true nature of the order must be analyzed to determine its effect.

The key factors that influenced the Court’s decision were:

1. The Government Order dated March 29, 2001, was a substantive amendment, not a mere clarification.
2. The original intention of the Government Order dated December 21, 1999, was to provide incentives at different stages of a lecturer’s career.
3. Retrospective application of the March 29, 2001, order would withdraw vested rights.
4. A clarification cannot impose a burden or withdraw an anticipated benefit.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

The following table demonstrates the sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court, ranked based on percentage.

Fact:Law Ratio

The following table shows the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the University and upheld the judgments of the High Court. The Court held that the Government Order dated March 29, 2001, was a substantive amendment and not a clarification, and therefore could not be applied retrospectively to deny the benefit of two advance increments to Dr. Manu. The Court reasoned that the original order of December 21, 1999, intended to provide incentives at different stages of a lecturer’s career and that the subsequent order could not withdraw vested rights. The Court emphasized that merely describing an order as a clarification does not make it so.

The Court stated:

“The said order has substantively modified the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999 to the extent of stating that teachers who had already got the benefit of advance increments for having a Ph.D. degree, would not be eligible for advance increments at the time of their placement in the selection grade.”

“On an analysis of the true nature and purport of the subsequent Government Order dated 29th March, 2001, we are of the view that it is not merely clarificatory, but is a substantial amendment which seeks to withdraw the benefit of two advance increments in favour of a certain category of lecturers.”

“For the reasons set out above, lecturers such as Respondent No. 1 who were placed in the selection grade before 29th March, 2001 would be entitled to all the incentives stipulated in the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999.”

Key Takeaways

• A government order that modifies the benefits of advance increments for lecturers cannot be applied retrospectively if it withdraws vested rights.
• A subsequent order described as a “clarification” must be analyzed to determine its true nature and cannot be automatically applied retrospectively.
• The purpose of incentives is to attract and retain qualified individuals, and these incentives should be interpreted in a way that promotes this goal.
• Lecturers who were placed in the selection grade before March 29, 2001, are entitled to all the benefits stipulated in the Government Order dated December 21, 1999.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than upholding the High Court’s decision. The University is directed to grant two advance increments to Dr. Manu as per the Government Order dated December 21, 1999.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a government order that substantively modifies an earlier order cannot be applied retrospectively if it withdraws vested rights. This judgment clarifies the distinction between a clarificatory order and a substantive amendment, emphasizing that merely labeling an order as a “clarification” does not make it so. The Court reinforced the principle that a clarification cannot impose a burden or withdraw an anticipated benefit. This ruling reinforces the protection of vested rights in service matters and provides guidance on the application of subsequent government orders.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit vs. Dr. Manu clarifies that a subsequent government order modifying the benefits of advance increments for lecturers cannot be applied retrospectively if it withdraws vested rights. The Court emphasized that the order of March 29, 2001, was a substantive amendment, not a clarification, and therefore could not be applied retrospectively to deny the benefit of two advance increments to Dr. Manu. This ruling ensures that lecturers who were placed in the selection grade before the modification date receive the benefits they were entitled to under the original scheme. This case underscores the importance of protecting vested rights and the need for a careful analysis of the true nature of government orders, even when described as clarifications.