Supreme Court of India

STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.versusDAMODAR NAYAK AND ANR.

Citation: 1997 INSC 337
Decided: 31 March 1997
Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYD P WADHWA

Holding

A lecturer who was unqualified at the time of appointment is eligible for grant‑in‑aid salary only from the date he acquires the requisite qualification, not retrospectively from the date of appointment.

Summary

The appeal concerned whether a lecturer appointed in 1976 without the requisite qualifications could receive salary under the Government's Grant‑in‑Aid Scheme. The State clarified in 1987 that unqualified lecturers with at least second‑class marks could be eligible, and a 1983 resolution prescribed specific qualification thresholds. The respondent secured the required 53.9% marks (equivalent to the 54% threshold) on 21 March 1989, after more than a decade of service. The court examined whether the grant‑in‑aid entitlement should be backdated to the initial appointment or commence from the date the qualification was obtained. It held that because the respondent lacked the statutory qualification at the time of appointment, the grant‑in‑aid could only apply from 1 April 1989, the month following his qualification. Consequently, the High Court’s order was modified to reflect this limited entitlement. The appeal was allowed and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether a lecturer appointed without the prescribed qualification is entitled to salary under the Grant‑in‑Aid Scheme from the date of initial appointment.
Whether the entitlement to grant‑in‑aid commences only from the date the lecturer acquires the required qualification.

Subjects

grant-in-aidsalaryqualificationlecturereligibilitypublic servicegovernment scheme

Judgment

A                        STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR,
                                            v.
                         OAMODAR. NA YAK AND ANR.

                                   MARCH 31, 1997'

B                 (K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

            Se,:..,ice Law-Grant-in-aid Scheml~Entiilen;e,;t to salary 'under tiie
    Scl1em~espq11de11t appoi11ted as. Lecture~uestion 'whether he wds en-
    titled to receive lf'ant-i11-aid for payment of salary from ilie date of his acquir-
e i1ig qualification 01' froli1 the date of i11itial 'ajJpointmeiit-Held admittedly,
    since the first respo11de11t 011 the date of his appointnlei;t w~s not pm:sessing
    the reqitisite qualification and acquired the sa1i1e only 011 March :21; l989, he
    will be eligible to the be1tefit of the grant-in~aid ~.e.f April 1, 1989 ai1d'oi1-
          .            ·.      ·,                         '
    wardS.

D           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2666 of
    1997.                          .  . .·               ' .

         From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.96 of the Orissa High
    Court in O.J.C. No. 3548 of 1996.

E           P.N. Misra for the Appellants.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          The report of the Registry indicates that the service is complete.
     However, the respondents are not appearing either in person or through
F    counsel.

            Leave granted.

           The question limited to the notice is : whether the respondent would
     be entitled to payment of salary under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme from the
G    date of initial appointment till he improved his qualification or from the
     date of his acquiring the qualification? The admitted position is that
     respondent No. 1 came to be appointed as a lecturer in 1976. The Govern-
     ment issued clarification on January 5, 1987 that unqualified lectures having
     minimum second class, i.e., 48% or above and below 54% of marks in P.G.
H    examination and appointed on or after 1.8.1977 in recognised non-Govern-
                                          456
                         STATE
                          I
                               v. DAMODAR NAYAK                              457

    ment Colleges would be eligible to receive· grant-in-aid. The Resolution A
    dated September 13, 1983 issued by the Government prescribes the
    qualification for recruitment of .L'ecturers of affiliated Colleges which
    indicates that "candidate not holding an M. Phil degree should possess a
    high second Class Master's degree, i.e., 54% marks and a second class
    Honours/Pass in the B.A./B. ,Cpm./B:S~. examinafion.", Respondent No. 1 B
    secured 53.9% marks, ~hich is almost equivaleiit of 54% niarks, on March
    21, 1989. Therefore, the. question arises : whether the second respoµdent



I   is entitled tO receive grant~in-aid for payirient of salary to the first respon-
                                     0




    dent from the date of his acquiririg qualification or from the date of initial
    appointment? Admittedly, sl~ce the first respondent on the date of his
    appointment was not possessing the requisite qualification anci acquired c.
    the\ame only oh March 21, 1989 he will be eligible to th~ benefit of the.
    grant-in-aid w'.e.f. Apr1il, 1989 dnd onwards. .         ·. . . . . . . .

         The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court
    passed· on April 23, 1996 in OJC No. 3548/96, to that extent stands
    modified. No costs. · · ·                                                      O·
    T.N.A.                                                    Appeal
                                                                 . . aJ.lowed.
                                                                         - .,




        i'                           i   '




                                                              ,,   ...
                  ..                         1       ••




                                             .   i

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "grant-in-aid"Sign in to search