Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 368 (KER)

State of Kerala v. Ramesh Bhai

2018-05-21

ANNIE JOHN, K.SURENDRA MOHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : K. 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 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 v. 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: 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 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. 7. Having considered the contentions advanced before us anxiously, we are not satisfied that any interference with the judgments appealed against is called for. 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. 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 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) SCT 319 (P.&H.); Punjab & Haryana High Court v. Priya Sood, 2011 (3) SCT 334 (P&H); Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2015 (4) KLT OnLine 3502 (P&H); 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 of advance increments. There is no rational basis for such classification. 8. 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 of advance increments. There is no rational basis for such classification. 8. The Allahabad High Court has in Sanjay Shanker Pandey v. State of U.P., 2017 LabIC 3812 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. 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.