JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J. (Oral) - C.M. No.3535 of 2018. Application is allowed. Document i.e. policy (Annexure A-4) is taken on record. C.M. No.189 of 2016 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, application is allowed. Delay of 220 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No.83 of 2016 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the High Court against the order dated 04.05.2015 vide which learned Single Judge accepted the claim of respondent for the grant of two pre-mature increments and has held him entitled to the arrears thereof within three months, failing which the respondent was further held entitled to claim interest @8% per annum. 3. The respondent was a Class-IV employee on the establishment of the High Court. He has retired from service after serving for 42 years. From the extracts of the original record produced by the High Court (Annexure A-4), it appears that some officials made representations to grant them three advance increments. Some of the Judges also recommended to grant pre-mature increments to their staff. The then Chief Justice vide orders dated 4/5 October, 1989 granted advanced increments to various staff members. This led to heart burning amongst the employees, who too sought similar benefit. Their representations were put up before the Committee of two Hon'ble Judges, who made the following recommendations on 19.12.1989:- "However, no person shall be eligible for advance increment if he is facing any departmental action or has suffered penalty during the said period. IV) We are also of the opinion that all the Class IV employees, who have earned 4 Good (+B) reports in the six preceding years, shall also be entitled to 2 pre-mature increments. This will meet the ends of justice and equity; As regards the recommendation made at page 35(a) & (b), we do not find it in the fitness of things to grant them any increment other than within the frame-work mentioned above. In any case, if case of an individual having outstanding merit or having been granted Merit Certificate is found out, his case would be considered individually for the grant of additional increment. This frame-work and benefit would be application to all the employees who have completed at least six years of service in the High Court." (emphasis applied) 4. These recommendations were approved by the then Acting Chief Justice on 24.03.1990. 5. This frame-work and benefit would be application to all the employees who have completed at least six years of service in the High Court." (emphasis applied) 4. These recommendations were approved by the then Acting Chief Justice on 24.03.1990. 5. Then the issue arose as to whether or not the employees to whom minor punishment like 'censure' or 'warning' had been issued be also granted pre-mature increment as per their service record. This issue was separately examined by the registry and one of the proposals put up before the then Acting Chief Justice was that "Even warning is not a penalty. They may also be ignored for the grant of pre-mature increments." The then Acting Chief Justice agreed and approved the office note on 12.04.1990. 6. The respondent was unfortunately served with two 'warnings' in the years 1985 and 1986 and he was thus denied pre-mature increments, though he had earned four good reports during the relevant period. The representation made by the respondent for grant of pre-mature increments was declined on 21.08.1999. 7. Meanwhile, some other employees of the High Court (Baldev Singh Jaswal, Senior Assistant and others) approached this Court on judicial side by way of CWP No.4668 of 1993 against denial of two pre-mature increments on the ground that they were administered 'warnings'. Their claim was accepted by a learned Single Judge on 06.10.1997 though in terms of an earlier decision of this Court dated 17.12.1991 passed in CWP No.7448 of 1991. The learned Single Judge held the writ petitioners entitled to payment of two pre-mature increments from 24.03.1990 irrespective of imposition of minor penalty of 'warning' on them. 8. We are informed that the High Court implemented the decision of learned Single Judge in Baldev Singh Jaswal's case (supra) and no appeal was filed. 9. No sooner this Court decided Baldev Singh Jaswal's case (supra), the respondent made a fresh representation that his claim was identical to the decided case, hence he may also be granted the pre-mature increments. His claim was again declined vide order dated 13.05.1999, against which he approached this Court on judicial side and his writ petition, as noticed at the outset, has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. 10. It may be true that recorded warning is one of the prescribed minor punishments. His claim was again declined vide order dated 13.05.1999, against which he approached this Court on judicial side and his writ petition, as noticed at the outset, has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. 10. It may be true that recorded warning is one of the prescribed minor punishments. However, the nature of such like punishment ordinarily does not case impediment in the growth of service career of an employee, more so when his or her performance with reference to his deficiency noticed while warning him/her, has subsequently disappeared. In the case in hand, the respondent did not give any other chance of warning in the subsequent years. His all the Annual Confidential Reports at the relevant time were 'good' or 'satisfactory'. The consistent good or satisfactory performance by the respondent sufficiently indicates that he improved his work and conduct and gave no occasion to the High Court to subject him to disciplinary action. In such a fact situation, denial of two increments to the respondent, which were given to most of the High Court employees and which led to severe civil consequences and heart burning besides financial loss of permanent nature with adverse impact even on his post retirement benefits, was totally unjustified. 11. We are, thus, of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not warrant any interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the appellant is granted three months' time to implement the order of the learned Single Judge and in case of doing so, the respondent shall not be entitled to any interest on the arrears.