- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 31 March 1997
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, D. P. Wadhwa
Headnote
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-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.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
The report of the Registry indicates that the service is complete. However, the respondents are not appearing either in person or through 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 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. examination and appointed on or after 1.8.1977 in recognised non-Govern-ment Colleges would be eligible to receive· grant-in-aid. The Resolution 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 secured 53.9% marks, ~hich is almost equivaleiit of 54% niarks, on March 21, 1989. Therefore, the. question arises : whether the second respoµdent
tO grant~in-aid 0 to I is entitled receive for payirient of salary the first respon-
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. .,
Case details
Arising from
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.
Appearances
P.N. Misra for the Appellants.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.