Narendra Singh and ors. Vs. State and ors.

.....and examining the scope of explanation i to sub-rule (4) of rule 6 of the rules construed in this background and answer the question. - further held, that it is the goods of the assessee for the purpose of execution of the works contract, which the assessee otherwise, could have hired the machinery and tools, instead of utilizing its own machinery and tools and in the process of execution of the work, the machinery and tools are worn down and depreciates in value and as the end price i.e., the value of the contract is fixed or determined by the contract factoring this wear and tear to the machinery and tools as a consequence of using them for the execution of the works contract, the value of the proportionate wear and tear of the machinery which is otherwise identified as depreciation has to be necessarily permitted as a deduction on the premise that it is equivalent to the hire charges as is otherwise provided in clause (d) and for such purpose one has to understand the same even in terms of the language of explanation i as quoted and particularly, to be one within the scope of "other similar expenses relatable to supply of labour and services." - while the extent of usage of machinery and tools in the execution, of any contract is dependent on facts and has to be worked out in each case and on ascertainment of all aspects of the matter - constitution of india - entry 54 of list ii in schedule vii - ganon dunker ley & co - (madras) ltd., vs. state of madras (1954) stc 216/air 1954 mad 1130 affirmed by the apex court in state of madras vs. ganon dunker ley & co - (madras) ltd.,(1958) 9 stc 353 - discussed. (paras 30, 34, 39) s.t.r.p. is allowed. .....pay in second selection grade of 6500-10500 will not be eligible for this pay protection because even under the rules of 1998 as initially exist, they were to be promoted to senior scale, which was rs.5500-9000 only. 3. but because of lacuna in the rules originally enacted, not 26 providing any specific provision, their fixation has been wrongly made by considering all senior teachers to be of the same category. the initial fixation in higher pay-scale being without any mistake on their part, until notification of amendment, the resultant recoveries of excess amount paid to them has been waived.4. but after correction of this lacuna on amendment of note 8, no such protection has been granted under the rules. if any such recovery has become due on account of continued drawing of pay by such senior teachers promoted after 1.7.1998, due to no mistake or misrepresentation on the part of such incumbents, they may make appropriate representation to the government to consider their cases against recovery.5. accordingly, with the aforesaid clarification the appeals are allowed. the judgment under appeal declaring notification dated 8.6.2001 to be ultra verse is set-aside. however, the view which we have taken on interpretation of the rules, the existing teachers who have been promoted as senior teacher in the second selection grade prior to commencement of the rules at any time but because of non-completion of 10 years of service as senior teacher under the revised rules were required to be fixed in lower pay-scale, their continuance in the higher pay-scale was protected as pay-scale personal to them under note to rule 6. 6. the rights of all the appellants stand protected to this extent. in that light, the writ petitions filed by the appellants stand allowed to that extent. a bunch of 62 special appeals (writ) (no. 936/05 state of rajasthan v. shyam swaroop upadhayaya) came up for consideration before division bench at jaipur bench that too vide judgment dt.04/04/08 (per.....