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

Date of the Judgment: 16th May, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 539

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

Can a clarification regarding advance increments for lecturers with Ph.D. degrees be applied retrospectively, potentially affecting the benefits already granted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving Sree Sankaracharya University and one of its lecturers. The core issue was whether a subsequent government order could alter the terms of an earlier order regarding advance increments for Ph.D. holders. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with the majority opinion authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

Dr. Manu joined Sree Sankaracharya University as a Lecturer in Hindi 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). In 2004, he was placed in the senior scale with effect from his joining date and granted four advance increments for holding a Ph.D. degree, as per the University Grants Commission (UGC) scheme of 1999. Later, on October 20, 2011, he was placed as a Selection Grade Lecturer with a notional date of placement as December 22, 1999. However, the university did not grant him two additional advance increments that were usually provided to Ph.D. holders upon placement in the selection grade. Dr. Manu challenged this decision, arguing that he was entitled to these additional increments.

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. degree were not eligible for additional increments when placed in the selection grade. The learned Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed Dr. Manu’s petition, directing the university to grant him two advance increments, emphasizing that the subsequent government order could not be applied retrospectively. The university then appealed to a Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s decision. Aggrieved by this, the University filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Clause 6.16, 6.18, and 6.19 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Scheme, as implemented by the Government Order dated December 21, 1999, and a subsequent Government Order dated March 29, 2001.

Clause 6.16 of the Government Order dated December 21, 1999, states:

“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.”

Clause 6.18 of the same order states:

“A Lecturer with Ph.D. will be eligible for two advance increments when she/he moves into Selection Grade/Reader.”

Clause 6.19 states:

“A teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when she/he acquires a Ph.D. degree in her/his service career.”

The subsequent Government Order dated March 29, 2001, clarified that teachers who had already received advance increments for holding a Ph.D. degree would not be eligible for additional increments upon placement in the selection grade. This order stated:

“Teachers who have got the benefit of advance increments for having Ph.D will not be eligible for advance increments at the time of their placement in the selection grade. But the teachers who got Ph.D. subsequently and who had not got the benefit earlier will be eligible for 2 advance increments when he/she moves into selection Grade Reader.”

The core issue was whether the Government Order dated March 29, 2001, was a clarification of the earlier order or a substantive amendment, and whether it could be applied retrospectively.

Arguments

Appellant-University’s Arguments:

• The University argued that Clauses 6.16 to 6.19 of the Government Order dated December 21, 1999, did not contemplate a double benefit for Ph.D. holders. They contended that the maximum number of advance increments for a teacher with a Ph.D. was limited to four.
• The University submitted that the Government Order dated March 29, 2001, was a clarificatory order, not an amendment, and thus should apply retrospectively. They argued that this order was issued to remove ambiguities in the implementation of the earlier order.
• The University relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court 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, regarding the retrospective application of a clarificatory amendment to a statute.
• The University also cited S. Sundaram Pillai vs. V.R. Pattabiraman, A.I.R. 1985 SC 582, arguing that an explanation added to a statutory provision is meant to clarify ambiguities and should be applied retrospectively.

Respondent No. 1 (Dr. Manu)’s Arguments:

• Dr. Manu argued that a combined reading of Clauses 6.16, 6.18, and 6.19 indicated that a lecturer with a Ph.D. at the time of recruitment was eligible for six advance increments—four at the time of recruitment and two more upon placement in the selection grade.
• He contended that the increments were effective at different phases of a lecturer’s career and should not be clubbed together.
• Dr. Manu submitted that the Government Order dated March 29, 2001, was a significant modification of the earlier order and could not be applied retrospectively.
• He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.C. Arora vs. State of Haryana, 1984 (3) SCC 281, arguing that an amendment cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly stated.
• He argued that applying the order of March 29, 2001 retrospectively would withdraw vested rights of lecturers like him.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

✓ 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?

✓ What order?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 8 SCC 1 – Regarding retrospective application of a clarificatory amendment to a statute. (Supreme Court of India)
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., (2008) 9 SCC 622 – Regarding retrospective application of a clarificatory amendment to a statute. (Supreme Court of India)
• State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Prasad Verma (Dead) through LRs , (2017) 5 SCC 665 – Regarding retrospective application of a clarificatory amendment to a statute. (Supreme Court of India)
• S. Sundaram Pillai vs. V.R. Pattabiraman, A.I.R. 1985 SC 582 – Regarding the nature of an explanation to a statutory provision. (Supreme Court of India)
• K.C. Arora vs. State of Haryana, 1984 (3) SCC 281 – Regarding the retrospective effect of an amendment. (Supreme Court of India)
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) – Regarding the nature of an amendment being clarificatory or substantive. (Supreme Court of India)
• Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC) – Regarding the retrospective application of a clarificatory amendment. (Supreme Court of India)
• Bihta Cooperative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd. vs. Bank of Bihar, A.I.R. 1967 SC 389 – Regarding the scope of an explanation to a statute. (Supreme Court of India)
• Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, (2007) 289 ITR 83 (SC) – Regarding the nature of an amendment being clarificatory or substantive. (Supreme Court of India)
• Union of India vs. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd., (2009) 12 SCC 209 – Regarding the retrospective application of a clarificatory amendment. (Supreme Court of India)

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Clause 6.16 of the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999 – “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.”
• Clause 6.18 of the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999 – “A Lecturer with Ph.D. will be eligible for two advance increments when she/he moves into Selection Grade/Reader.”
• Clause 6.19 of the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999 – “A teacher will be eligible for two advance increments as and when she/he acquires a Ph.D. degree in her/his service career.”
• Government Order dated March 29, 2001 – “Teachers who have got the benefit of advance increments for having Ph.D will not be eligible for advance increments at the time of their placement in the selection grade. But the teachers who got Ph.D. subsequently and who had not got the benefit earlier will be eligible for 2 advance increments when he/she moves into selection Grade Reader.”

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court distinguished the cases cited by the University, stating that the Government Order dated March 29, 2001, was not a clarification but a substantive amendment.
• The Court relied on K.C. Arora vs. State of Haryana, 1984 (3) SCC 281, to emphasize that an amendment cannot be applied retrospectively unless expressly stated.
• The Court also relied on Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, (2007) 289 ITR 83 (SC), to emphasize that the Court will not regard itself as being bound by the said statement in the statute itself, but will proceed to analyse the nature of the amendment and then conclude whether it is in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is an amendment which is intended to change the law and which applies to future periods.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a substantive amendment to a law cannot be applied retrospectively if it withdraws vested rights. The Court emphasized that the Government Order dated March 29, 2001, altered the existing benefits for lecturers who had a Ph.D. at the time of recruitment and were placed in the selection grade before the order was issued. The Court noted that a clarification should not impose an unanticipated burden or withdraw an anticipated benefit. The Court also considered the purpose of the incentives, which was to attract and retain qualified individuals in the teaching profession.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because they would have led to an unjust outcome where lecturers who were entitled to certain benefits under the old scheme would have those benefits taken away by the new scheme. The Court emphasized that such an interpretation would go against the principle of protecting vested rights. The final decision was reached by applying the principle that a substantive amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to withdraw vested rights.

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.”

“The purpose of the incentives in question seems to be twofold: First, to incentivize persons with advanced educational qualifications to apply for the post of lecturers. Second, in order to retain in the teaching profession, persons with advanced qualifications.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• A subsequent government order that modifies existing benefits cannot be applied retrospectively if it withdraws vested rights.
• A clarification to a law should not impose an unanticipated burden or withdraw an anticipated benefit.
• The purpose of incentives for higher qualifications is to attract and retain qualified individuals in the teaching profession.

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving retrospective application of amendments to service rules. It reinforces the principle that vested rights cannot be taken away by subsequent amendments unless such amendments are explicitly made retrospective and are not merely clarificatory.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgments of the High Court, directing the University to grant two advance increments to Dr. Manu.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a subsequent government order that modifies existing benefits cannot be applied retrospectively if it withdraws vested rights. This judgment clarifies the distinction between a clarificatory order and a substantive amendment, emphasizing that a true clarification cannot impose unanticipated burdens or withdraw anticipated benefits. This reinforces the legal position that retrospective application of laws should not adversely affect vested rights unless explicitly stated and justified.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sree Sankaracharya University, affirming the High Court’s decision to grant two advance increments to Dr. Manu. The Court held that the Government Order dated March 29, 2001, was a substantive amendment and not a clarification, and thus could not be applied retrospectively to deny Dr. Manu the benefits he was entitled to under the earlier order. This judgment underscores the principle that vested rights cannot be taken away by subsequent amendments unless such amendments are explicitly made retrospective and are not merely clarificatory.