In Brief
A university lecturer with a Ph.D. degree was entitled to four advance salary increments upon initial recruitment and an additional two increments upon promotion to Selection Grade, under a 1999 Government Order. A subsequent 2001 Order purporting to "clarify" the earlier rule stated that those already receiving Ph.D. increments at recruitment could not receive additional increments on promotion. The Supreme Court held that the 2001 Order was not a genuine clarification but a substantive amendment that unlawfully withdrew vested benefits. Since the lecturer was promoted before the 2001 Order took effect, he remained entitled to all six increments under the original scheme. Retrospective application of amendments that withdraw vested rights is impermissible under Indian law.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.