2003 (11) TMI 612 - SC - Indian Laws

Entitlement of Professors to an additional increment under the revised pay scales - Interpretation of Rules 8(1) (a) and (b) of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1985 ('Rules') - HELD THAT - 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 admittedly more than what they had been getting prior to the revision of the pay scale. A bare perusal of the Rule would clearly show that fixation of pay in the revised scale of pay would be governed by the said Rule. Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 contemplate two different situations. In a case where the minimum of the revised scale is less than the existing emolument, the concerned employee will get at least the minimum scale of pay as is provided in clause (a) thereof or if there is no such stage of the existing emoluments then it shall be fixed at the stage next above the existing emoluments. The exception clause contained therein is referable only to a situation occurring in clause (b) and not to clause (a). If the exception is held to cover both the situations contemplated under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 for all intent and purport, sub-rule (a) shall become meaningless. It is no doubt true that if on going through the plain meaning of the language of statutes, it leads to anomalies, injustices and absurdities, then the court may look into the purpose for which the statute has been brought and would try to give a meaning, which would adhere to the purpose of the statute. Patanjali Sastri, C.J in the case of Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose, 1952 (10) TMI 32 - SUPREME COURT had held that it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplausage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute. The principle of liberal interpretation which is applied in case of an beneficent legislation has no application in the instant case inasmuch as by reason of Rule 8 of the said Rules, the State had merely specified the mode and manner of application thereof. The same was necessary having regard to the difficulty which may cause to the employees who might have been receiving higher emoluments than the minimum prescribed under the revised pay scale at a point of time when the revised pay scale came into force. Furthermore, clauses (a) and (b) having regard to the rule of the punctuation must be read separately. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that there being no ambiguity in Rule 8 (1) (a), the writ petitioners were only entitled to the minimum of the revised scale. Thus, the appeals deserve to be allowed. The judgments under challenge are set aside. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Rules 8(1)(a) and (b) of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1985.
2. Entitlement of Professors to an additional increment under the revised pay scales.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of Rules 8(1)(a) and (b) of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1985:
The Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting Rules 8(1)(a) and (b) of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1985, framed u/a 309 of the Constitution of India. The respondents, who were Lecturers and Professors, contended that they were entitled to an additional increment as per Rule 8(1)(b) when their pay scales were revised. The Full Bench of the Orissa High Court had previously interpreted these rules to mean that the exception in Rule 8(1)(b) applied to both clauses (a) and (b), thus entitling the teachers to an additional increment.

2. Entitlement of Professors to an Additional Increment:
The respondents argued that the revised pay scales should include an additional increment as per Rule 8(1)(b). The Full Bench of the Orissa High Court supported this view, interpreting the rule as beneficent legislation. However, the Supreme Court found that Rule 8(1)(a) and (b) addressed different situations. Rule 8(1)(a) applied when the minimum of the revised scale was less than the existing emoluments, while Rule 8(1)(b) applied when there was no equivalent stage in the revised scale. The Court concluded that the exception clause in Rule 8(1)(b) did not apply to Rule 8(1)(a). Therefore, the Professors were only entitled to the minimum of the revised scale without any additional increment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that there was no ambiguity in Rule 8(1)(a) and that the Professors were only entitled to the minimum of the revised scale. The appeals were allowed, and the judgments under challenge were set aside. The Court emphasized that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be interpreted as written, without judicial modification. The principle of liberal interpretation for beneficent legislation was deemed inapplicable in this case.