TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers and Professors was fixed at ₹ 2200-4000 and 4500-7300 respectively. On the relevant date i.e. immediately prior to 1st January, 1986, the professors were getting ₹ 2927 under the Rules. The respondents filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court, claiming therein that in addition to the minimum of ₹ 4500-7300, one further increment is also to be given as required under Rules 8(1) (b). At the time when the aforesaid writ petition was filed, a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa in O.J.C. No. 2588 of 1991 took a view that while fixing the emoluments of the Teachers of the University under the UGC scales, an additional increment is to be given at the initial stage. However, another Division Bench in O.J.C. No. 6405 of 1992 was of the view that no such increment is to be given at the initial stage of fixation in the revised pay scales under the Rules. In view of the conflicting decisions of two coordinate Benches of the High Court, the writ petition filed by the Berhampur University Teachers' Association was referred for decision to a larger Bench. Rules 8(1) (a) and (b) of the Rules reads as thus: 8 (1) Unless in any case the Unive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evised Scales of Pay Rules, 1985 was under active consideration of Government for some time past. After careful consideration, the State Government have been pleased to amend the Para-22 of this Depatt. Resolution No. 7981-1 dt. 29/3/90 as follows: (a) In cases where the existing (pre-revised) emoluments is less than the minimum of the revised scale of pay in the revised scale of pay in the revised scale shall be fixed at the stage next above the minimum. (b) The next increment of a Government Servant whose pay has been fixed in the revised scales shall be granted on the anniversary of the last increment in the existing scale, unless otherwise inadmissible. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment even directed grant of the minimum of the pay scales of ₹ 4500 with one increment, while fixing the pay in the pay scale of ₹ 4500-7300. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellants are in appeal before us. It is not disputed that the revised pay scale of the Professors was ₹ 1500-2500 and the appellants were getting ₹ 2927 and after revision they were required to be placed on the minimum of the scale, which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 6(1), but also by a non-prescribed period. Same can never be the legislative intent. Similarly in Hansoli Devi's case (supra), this Court held: 9. Before we embark upon an inquiry as to what would be the correct interpretation of Section 28-A, we think it appropriate to bear in mind certain basic principles of interpretation of a statute. The rule stated by Tindal, C.J. in Sussex Peerage case (1844) 11 CI Fin 85 : 8 ER 1034 still holds the field. The aforesaid rule is to the effect: (ER p. 1057) If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such case, best declare the intention of the lawgiver. It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the court must give effect to the words used in the statute and it would not be open to the courts to adopt a hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. In Kirkness v. John Hudson Co. Ltd., [1995] 2 All ER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of two learned Judges. It is no doubt true that the object of Section 28-A of the Act was to confer a right of making a reference, (sic on one) who might have not made a reference earlier under Section 18 and, therefore, ordinarily when a person makes a reference under Section 18 but that was dismissed on the ground of delay, he would not get the right of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act when some other person makes a reference and the reference is answered. But Parliament having enacted Section 28-A, as a beneficial provision, it would cause great injustice if a literal interpretation is given to the expression had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 in Section 28-A of the Act. The aforesaid expression would mean that if the landowner has made an application for reference under Section 18 and that reference is entertained and answered. In other words, it may not be permissible for a landowner to make a reference and get it answered and then subsequently make another application when some other person gets the reference answered and obtains a higher amount. In fact in Pradeep Kumari's case the three learned Judges, while enumerating the conditio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
