ORDER 03.01.2008 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners five in number and the members of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service (Sr. Branch). They have been recruited directly from the Bar and are holding different posts in the same cadre. The brief facts, as delineated in the writ petition, tend to reveal that as per Rule 13 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service (Sr. Branch) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), the petitioners are entitled to draw advance increments with effect from their initial date of joining. Rule 13 of the said Rules provides as follows : “The initial pay of a direct recruitee to the Senior Branch of the Service shall, on each occasion of his appointment whether in a temporary or in a permanent vacancy be fixed at such stage in the time scale of pay for the service by allowing one advance increment for such three years of Bar practice subject to the maximum of four advance increments.” According to Dr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 as per the aforesaid Rules are the direct recruitees and as such they are entitled to one advance increment for each three years of practice at the Bar subject to the maxi¬mum of four advance increments. This provision was inserted in the Rules with a view to give incentive to the officers, who were brought from the Bar. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this benefit was availed by petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. While the matter stood thus, O.P.No. 1 issued a Resolution dated 3.6.2003 for implementing the recommendations of the Shetty Commission in respect of all the Judicial Officers of the State vide Annexure-6/A. The said Resolution was issued in pursuance of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued in the case of All India Judges Association vrs. Union of India reported in (1993) 4 SCC 288 . By virtue of Annexure-6/A, the scale of pay of District Judges at entry level was revised with effect from 1.1.1996 with a stipulation that the monetary benefit arising out of revision of pay scale shall be payable with effect from 1.7.1996. It is worthwhile to mention here that petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were getting the benefit under Rule 13 of the O.S.J.S. (Sr. Branch) Rules. Petitioner Nos. It is worthwhile to mention here that petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were getting the benefit under Rule 13 of the O.S.J.S. (Sr. Branch) Rules. Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 on their joining the respective posts applied to the Home Department for grant of aforesaid benefit. The scale of pay of the petitioners as per the Judges’ Association Case (supra) was revised, but so far as petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned the benefit under Rule 13 enjoyed by the above petitioners was not extended. Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were also deprived of such benefit. According to the opposite parties, there is no provision of advance increment for the officers brought from the Bar because of the fact that they have been allowed higher scale of pay as per the decision of the apex Court. Learned counsel for the State draws our attention to the relevant portion of the counter affidavit wherein a comparative chart was given indicating the earlier scale of pay enjoyed by the officers of O.S.J.S. (Sr. Branch) cadre and the salary which they were getting after the same was revised. It is further averred in the said counter affidavit that grant of further advance increment in the specially recommended pay scale may create anomalous situation between the senior and junior and further it is averred that consequent upon introduction of higher scale of pay in favour of the Judicial Officers of the State retrospectively as per decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the provision for grant of advance increment as laid down under Rule 13 of the OSJS (Sr. Branch) Rules, 1963, read with the Home Department Notification No. 83849 dated 13.12.1991 has become redundant w.e.f. 1.7.1996. In that event, in the absence of any specific mandate of the Supreme Court or recommendation of the Shetty Commission for allowing advance increments to the Judicial Officers of the State taking into account their period of prac¬tice at Bar, petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are no more eligible to avail the benefit of advance increment with effect from the date of their joining in the cadre. On perusal of Annexure-A, i.e., the Resolution dated 3rd June, 2003 and the notification dated 13.12.1991, we do not find anything to show that the benefit under Rule 13 has been taken away by the aforesaid Resolution. On perusal of Annexure-A, i.e., the Resolution dated 3rd June, 2003 and the notification dated 13.12.1991, we do not find anything to show that the benefit under Rule 13 has been taken away by the aforesaid Resolution. Even if a notification to that effect has been issued, the Government Notification cannot take away the applicability of statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and make it redundant as claimed. Our attention was drawn to the provisions of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 which came into force on 23rd August, 2007. The provisions of Rule 48 of the said Rules are quoted below. “48. Repeal and savings - (1) The Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 and the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1994 are hereby repealed. Provided that any order passed, appointment made, action taken or things done under the above Rules so repealed shall be deemed to have been passed, made, taken or done under the corresponding provisions of these Rules. (2) Provision of other Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution by the Government from time to time, if not inconsistent with these Rules, shall have application to the officers of the service.” The above shows that the 1963 Rules were in vogue till the same were repealed on the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and OJS Rules, 2007 came into force. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Annexure-A has taken away the effect of Rule 13 of the 1963 Rules as argued by the State. We have, therefore, no hesitation to allow the writ petition and accordingly we do so. The opposite parties are directed to extend the benefit to the petitioners as per Rule 13 of the 1963 Rules from the date of their entitlement. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed.