The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice K. M. Joseph provided clarification on the nature of amendments by analyzing whether they are genuinely clarificatory or declaratory, or if they aim to change the law and apply to future periods.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The Appellant-University had filed the Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the final judgment and order issued by the High Court of Kerala in the Writ Appeal of 2016. In the impugned judgment, the High Court's Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the Appellant-University and upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The earlier judgment had directed the appellant-University to grant two advance increments to Respondent No. 1, based on Clause 6.18 of the revised University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as “UGC”) Scheme, 1998, and a Government Order. This grant of increments was to be given upon the respondent's placement as a Selection Grade Lecturer.
Brief Background of the Case:
Dr. Manu, identified as Respondent No. 1, joined the Appellant as a Lecturer in the Hindi language department. Before that, he had served as a Hindi Lecturer at Mahatma Gandhi Government Arts College, Mahe, Pondicherry. Respondent No. 1 was placed on the senior scale. Additionally, he was granted four advance increments under Clause 6.16 of the UGC Scheme, which stated that candidates with a PhD degree at the time of recruitment as lecturers would be eligible for four advance increments.
Respondent No. 1 was placed as a Selection Grade Lecturer with a notional placement, his pay was fixed, without granting him the two advance increments that should have been given to a Lecturer holding a PhD degree when placed as a Selection Grade Lecturer, as per Clause 6.18 of the UGC Scheme.
Procedural History:
In response, Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala, challenging the Appellant-University's orders. The writ petition sought various reliefs, including the quashing of the order, and the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Appellant-University to grant the advance increments and the disbursement of salary and arrears.
The Appellant-University countered the writ petition by asserting that Respondent No. 1 was not eligible for further increments based on his PhD degree at the time of his placement in the selection grade. The Appellant-University referred to a Government Order (hereinafter referred to as “G.O”), which clarified that teachers who had already received advance increments for holding a PhD degree would not be eligible for additional increments upon their placement in the selection grade. The learned Single Judge of the High Court partially allowed the writ petition and directed the Appellant-University to grant two advance increments to Respondent No. 1 following Clause 6.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The appellants argued that the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala were based on an incorrect understanding of the law and facts of the case. They contended that these judgments should be overturned. They further contended that according to Clauses 6.16 to 6.19 of the Government Order, a teacher with a PhD degree could only receive a maximum of four advance increments under any circumstance. Therefore, a teacher who received four advance increments at the time of recruitment based on their PhD qualification would not be eligible for additional increments when placed in the selection grade.
Referring to the specific provisions of the Government Order, they argued that these provisions do not allow for double benefits based on a PhD qualification. They claimed that a Lecturer who already received advance increments at the time of recruitment due to holding a PhD qualification cannot claim further increments based on the same qualification when placed in the selection grade.
The appellants further argued that the subsequent Government Order clarified that teachers who had already received advance increments for having a PhD qualification would not be eligible for additional increments when placed in the selection grade. This order was clarificatory and did not create or withdraw any substantive rights. The clarification related to the effective date of the previous Government Order. They argued that when an order explicitly states that it is a clarification of an earlier order, it should be interpreted as such and applied retrospectively from the effective date of the order being clarified. He cited various court decisions to support this argument.
The appellants prayed for the appeal to be allowed and for the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, respectively, to be quashed and set aside.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents argued that the High Court's judgment, which is being challenged, is based on a sound understanding of the law and facts of the case and should not be interfered with by the Court. They further argued that when Clauses 6.16, 6.18, and 6.19 are read together, it becomes evident that a Lecturer with a PhD degree at the time of recruitment would be eligible for six advance increments: four increments at the time of recruitment and an additional two increments when placed in the selection grade.
Additionally, they contended that if a Lecturer does not possess a PhD degree at the time of recruitment but obtains one while serving as a Lecturer before being placed in the selection grade, they would still be eligible for four advance increments: two increments upon obtaining the PhD degree and two more upon placement in the selection grade. They further argued that just because both the increments granted at the time of recruitment and those that could be obtained at the time of placement in the selection grade were based on the PhD qualification, it does not mean that the former set of increments should be given precedence over the latter. The increments were granted at different stages of a Lecturer's career. Therefore, Clauses 6.16, 6.18, and 6.19 should not be interpreted to suggest that a Lecturer who already received four advance increments at the time of recruitment would not be eligible for two additional advance increments upon placement in the selection grade.
The respondents further argued that a close examination of Clauses 6.16, 6.18, and 6.19 does not indicate that a Lecturer who already received four advance increments at the time of recruitment would be ineligible for two more advance increments upon placement in the selection grade. Therefore, the Government Order which significantly modified the meaning of these clauses, cannot be considered a clarification and thus cannot be applied retrospectively.
They submitted that the High Court correctly concluded that the order dated cannot be categorized as a clarificatory order with retrospective effect, even though it was issued in response to a clarification sought regarding the eligibility of teachers who already received advance increments for holding a PhD degree upon placement in the selection grade. Applying for the order retrospectively would result in the withdrawal of vested rights of Lecturers like Respondent No. 1, which contradicts established legal principles that amendments cannot nullify vested rights when applied retrospectively.
Observations of the Court:
The Apex Court held that a literal interpretation should be avoided if it undermined the law's intended purpose. The Court stated that if the amendment was not applied retrospectively, it would be impossible to interpret the provision reasonably. Since there was an evident omission in the provision, an amendment was necessary to clarify and declare the law retrospectively.
The principle that a clarificatory provision can be made applicable retrospectively is well-established. However, it is essential to differentiate between a clarification/explanation and a substantive amendment. Merely labelling a provision as an "Explanation" or a "clarification" does not determine its true meaning and impact. The Courts must analyze the nature of the amendment to determine whether it is genuinely clarificatory or declaratory, or if it intends to change the law and applies to future periods.
The Supreme Court also emphasised that for an amendment to be considered clarificatory, the pre-amended law must have been vague or ambiguous. If an amendment is required to interpret a provision reasonably, it is regarded as a clarification or declaration of the previous law and can be applied retrospectively.
The Supreme Court concluded that the subsequent Government Order was not merely clarificatory but a substantial amendment that sought to withdraw the benefit of two advance increments for a specific category of lecturers. As this benefit was not anticipated under the previous scheme, the amendment cannot be given retrospective effect.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the impugned judgement and order of the High Court.
Case Title: Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors. Vs. Dr. Manu & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3752 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 493 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B. V. Nagarathna Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. M. Joseph
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Surendranath P V, Sr. Adv. Mr. Biju P Raman, AOR Mr. Sawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Lekha Sudhakar, Adv.
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Raghenth Basant, Adv. Mr. P. V. Dinesh, AOR Ms. Roopali Lakhotia, Adv. Mr. Ajay Krishna, Adv. Ms. Nida K, Adv. Mr. Akhil K M, Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V T, Adv
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
