LatestLaws.

com

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2018 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1940

WA.No. 1198 of 2015 IN WPC. 2653/2013

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)2653/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28-11-2014

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN WPC

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

2 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 001

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI ANTONY MUKKATH

RESPONDENT(S):

1. RAMESH BHAI
SUB JUDGE, 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ADHOC-II, CALICUT
PIN 673 004

2. B. KALAM PASHA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND UNIVERSITY APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 035

3. SANKARAN NAIR
1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, WAYANAD 673122

4. K.P. SUDHIR
11ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PALAKKAD PIN- 678 001

5. RAJU. N.V.
SUB JUDGE, IRINJAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN- 680 121

R1-R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-05-2018 ALONG WITH
W.A.NOS.1199 OF 2015 & 1200 OF 2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

kkj
 LatestLaws.com

WA.No. 1198 of 2015

APPENDIX

APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES

ANNX 1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SHETTY COMMISSION REPORT

ANNX 2: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVENAT PAGES OF THE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION OF

SHETTY COMMISSION

ANNX 3; TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE JUDICIAL PAY COMMISSION
REPORT

ANNX 4; TRUE COPY OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AS PER ORDER DTD 02.08.2010
IN I.A.NO.244 IN W.P.NO.1022/1989.

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE
 LatestLaws.com

K.SURENDRA MOHAN & ANNIE JOHN, JJ.

---------------------------------------------
W.A.Nos.1198, 1199 & 1200 of 2015
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2018

JUDGMENT

Surendra Mohan, J.

The State is in appeal challenging the judgments of

two learned Single Judges allowing W.P.(C) Nos.2653/2013,

25828 of 2012 and 25854 of 2012. W.P.(C) Nos. 25828 of

2012 and 25854 of 2012 are disposed of by a common

judgment dated 16.12.2014 while W.P.(C) No.2653 of 2013

has been disposed of by another learned Single Judge as per

judgment dated 28.11.2014. Since the issues that arise for

consideration are common, these appeals are considered

and disposed of together.

2. W.A.No.1198 of 2015 is treated as the leading

case. The respondents are the writ petitioners.

The question involved is whether Judicial

Officers who have acquired Post Graduate
Degrees while in service are entitled to be
granted three advance increments, in the same
 LatestLaws.com

-:2:-
W.A.Nos.1198, 1199
& 1200 of 2015

manner as such advance increments are granted

to persons possessing Post Graduate Degrees at
the time of recruitment.

3. The respondents are all Judicial Officers working

in the State. They are all persons who have acquired Post

Graduate Degrees in Law while in service. The Supreme

Court in All India Judges Association vs. Union of

India [(2002) 4 SCC 247] had issued directions for

improvement of the service conditions of Judicial Officers.

The directions were issued by the Court upon finding that

the recommendations of the Shetty Commission have not

been implemented by any of the States other than Delhi and

Rajasthan. A direction to implement the report of the

Shetty Commission was also issued. As per

recommendation No.8.48, three advance increments were

directed to be granted to persons having higher

qualification like Post Graduation in Law. The said

recommendation reads as under:

 LatestLaws.com

-:3:-
W.A.Nos.1198, 1199
& 1200 of 2015

RECOMMENDATION BY THE COMMISSION:

8.48 If selected candidates are having a having a higher

qualification like Post-Graduation in Law, we recommend
that three advance increments be given as it is allowed by
the Delhi Administration. It is an acknowledged fact that
Post-Graduation in Law is a difficult course and it is better

to reward appropriately such candidates.

The above recommendation was implemented by the State

by granting three advance increments to persons who

possess Post Graduate Degrees in Law at the time of

appointment. The respondents in these appeals are all

persons who have acquired Post Graduation while in

service. Though they have acquired Post Graduate degrees,

they have not been granted the benefit of three advance

increments. By exhibits P2 and P4 in the Writ Petition, the

advance increments were confined by the State to fresh

recruits in the cadre of Munisffs-Magistrates. Exhibit P4

was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in

W.P.(C) No.34846 of 2008. As per exhibit P5 judgment, this

Court held that all Munsiffs-Magistrates having Post

 LatestLaws.com

-:4:-
W.A.Nos.1198, 1199
& 1200 of 2015

Graduate Degrees in Law and recruited after the date of

Shetty Commission viz. 01.11.1999 shall be entitled to the

benefit of exhibit P2 order. Though the State challenged

exhibit P5 decision in appeal, the appeal was dismissed by

exhibit P6 judgment. Thereafter, the Government issued

exhibit P7 order extending the benefit of advance

increments to all Munsiff-Magistrates recruited with Post

Graduation in Law and who are in service on 01.07.1996.

The respondents being persons who were not recruited with

Post Graduation were not granted the benefit of the

advance increments. It was in the said circumstances that

they had approached this Court with the Writ Petitions from

which these appeals arise.

4. The Writ Petitions were contested by the State, by

filing counter affidavits. As already noticed above, two Writ

Petitions were disposed of by a common judgment while the

third Writ Petition was disposed of by another learned

Single Judge by a separate judgment. However, both the

 LatestLaws.com

-:5:-
W.A.Nos.1198, 1199
& 1200 of 2015

learned Single Judges have found that there was no

justification for denying the benefit of three advance

increments to persons who had acquired Post Graduate

Degrees while in service and therefore, have allowed the

Writ Petitions. The State has filed these appeals against the

said judgments.

5. According to the learned Government Pleader, the

impugned judgments have granted a benefit to the

respondents, that was not in the contemplation of the

Shetty Commission or recommended by it. Reliance is

placed on the words “selected candidates" in clause 8.48

extracted above to contend that, the recommendation was

only to grant three advance increments to the selected

candidates. The recommendation cannot be extended by a

process of interpretation to persons who are in service also.

According to the learned Government Pleader therefore,

persons who acquire Post Graduate Degrees while in

service are not entitled to be granted the advance

 LatestLaws.com

-:6:-
W.A.Nos.1198, 1199
& 1200 of 2015

increments since they fall outside the scope of the

recommendation made by the Shetty Commission. The

Government Pleader refers to the report of the One man

Commission headed by Justice E. Padmanabhan (Retd.)

submitted on 17.07.2009 (relevant portions of which is

produced as annexure-3 in the appeal) to point out that

though additional increments for acquiring higher

qualifications had been recommended, the Supreme Court

in annexure-4 ordered that as regards the recommendations

contained in paragraphs 73 to 75 of Justice Padmanabhan

Committee, they are kept in abeyance for the time being.

The question of grant of advance increments being part of

paragraph 74 is therefore to be kept in abeyance, until

permitted by the Supreme Court. The Government Pleader

therefore seeks interference with the judgment appealed

against.

6. Advocate K.Shaj who appears for the respondents

points out that, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has in
 LatestLaws.com

-:7:-
W.A.Nos.1198, 1199
& 1200 of 2015

decisions rendered on the very same point held that Judicial

Officers acquiring Post Graduate qualifications while in

service are also entitled to the benefits of advance

increments recommended by the Shetty Commission. It is

pointed out that the view taken by the Allahabad High Court

is also on the same lines. Though the decision of the Punjab

& Haryana High Court had been challenged before the

Supreme Court, the challenge had been unsuccessful.

Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there is no

justification for denying the said benefits to the Judicial

Officers of the State of Kerala. According to the learned

Counsel, in all other States in the country, the benefit is

being granted to all Judicial Officers acquiring Post

Graduate Degrees while in service. We have also heard

Advocate P.Sreekumar who has put forward similar

contentions in support of the claim of the respondents. We

have also been taken through the judgments appealed

against.
 LatestLaws.com

-:8:-
W.A.Nos.1198, 1199
& 1200 of 2015

7. Having considered the contentions advanced

before us anxiously, we are not satisfied that any

interference with the judgments appealed against is called

for. As clear from the recommendations of the Shetty

Commission already extracted above, what was necessary

was to grant the benefit of advance increments to the

selected candidates having higher qualifications like Post

Graduation in Law. The recommendation was made on the

premise that acquisition of a Post Graduate Degree in law

was a difficult task. If so, the same reasoning would

support the grant of advance increments to even persons

who acquire the Post Graduate Degree while in service.

However, we are of the view that, there is no justification

for giving a restrictive interpretation to the words “selected

candidates” in recommendation No.8.48 of the Shetty

Commission extracted above to limit the benefits to only

those persons possessing Post Graduate Degrees at the time

of recruitment. This is for the reason that, even the persons

 LatestLaws.com

-:9:-
W.A.Nos.1198, 1199
& 1200 of 2015

who are already in service are selected candidates, the only

difference being that they were selected prior to the dates

on which the persons who have been granted the advance

increments were selected. The Punjab & Haryana High

Court in the decision cited before us namely Priya Sood v.

State of Punjab [2011(3) SCT319(P&H)] Punjab &

Haryana High Court v. Priya Sood [2011(3)SCT

334(P&H)], Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab

[MANU/PH/2929/2015] Virender Parshad v. State of

Haryana [2013(2)SCT 728 (P&H)] has found that denial of

the benefit of advance increments to persons who have

acquired Post Graduate Degrees while in service was both

discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution. We are also of the view that, there is no

justification for treating persons who have acquired Post

Graduate Degrees while in service differently from persons

who were possessing such Post Graduate Degrees at the

time of recruitment for the purpose of denial of the benefit

 LatestLaws.com

-:10:-
W.A.Nos.1198, 1199
& 1200 of 2015

of advance increments. There is no rational basis for such

classification.

8. The Alahabad High Court has in Sanjay Shanker

Pandey v. State of U.P. [2017 LabIC3812] found that the

principle of equal pay for equal work as well as the concept

of legitimate expectation are violated by denial of the

increments. We do not find any substance in the contention

of the learned Government Pleader that in view of the order

of the Apex Court annexure-4, keeping in abeyance

paragraphs 73 to 75 of Justice Padmanabhan Committee

Report, the claim of the respondents should be rejected. As

already noticed by us, the Supreme Court has in the All

India Judges Association Case directed implementation of

the report of the Shetty Commission. The restrictive

interpretation placed on the said recommendation by the

State while implementing the same cannot be

countenanced. The same has therefore been rightly set

aside by the judgments appealed against.

 LatestLaws.com

-:11:-
W.A.Nos.1198, 1199
& 1200 of 2015

9. We find that the issue has been addressed

properly by the judgments appealed against. We find no

infirmity therein warranting an interference in appeal.

10. In the result, these appeals are dismissed

confirming the judgments appealed against.

The counsel appearing for the respondents in these

cases submit that the time limit stipulated by the judgments

appealed against has expired. In view of the above, the

appellant shall disburse the benefits due to the respondents,

as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period

of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE

ANNIE JOHN
JUDGE

kkj