IMPORTANT POINT
There is no rationale in providing advance increment to those candidates who possessed higher qualification in law on or after 1.11.1999.

JUDGMENT

R.M. LODHA,J.

The petitioner – Bharatkumar Shantilal Thakkar joined judicial service in the State of Gujarat in 1995. Prior to his joining judicial service, the petitioner had done post-graduation in law. By this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, he has prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to implement para 8.48 of the recommendations of the Ist National Judicial Pay Commission (for short “Commission”) which has been approved by this Court.

2. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, by Resolution dated 14.6.2012, additional benefit of three advance increments has been given to the Judicial Officers of the subordinate judiciary in the State of Gujarat pursuant to the recommendations made in the Ist Pay Commission particularly para 8.48 thereof. In that Resolution, however, the sanction of the benefit of three advance increments is conditional upon fulfillment of condition set-out in para 2 or para 4, as the case may be. The relevant part of Resolution dated 14.06.2012 reads:

1 .........

2. The advance increments to be given to candidates who possessed higher qualifications in Law at the time of joining service on or after 1.11.1999. But, such increment shall be released upon successful completion of probation period.

3. .........

4. The Judicial Officers joined the services after 1.11.1999 and are having such higher qualifications at the time of selection, they shall be entitled to get such threes advance increments......

3. Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above Resolution does not address the grievance of the petitioner as additional benefit of three advance increments has been made available to those who possessed higher qualification in law on or after 1.11.1999. He further submits that the cut-off date prescribed in the Resolution is wholly arbitrary and that has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

4. In para 8.48, the Commission made the following recommendation:

If selected candidates are 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.

5. In All India Judges Association & Others vs. Union of India and others1, this Court accepted all the recommendations of the Commission except those which were modified in the judgment itself.

This is apparent from para 37 of the judgment which reads as under:

“Subject to the various modifications in this judgment, all other recommendations of the Shetty Commission are accepted.”

6. Having regard to the above, the Registrar General of the Gujarat High Court by his communication dated 2.4.2008 sent to the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Legal Department advised him to move the Government for insertion of Rule 7-A in the Gujarat

State Judicial Services Rules, 2005 (for short “2005 Rules”). Rule 7-A of 2005 Rules, proposed by the High Court, reads as under:

A candidate selected for the post of Civil Judge who possesses higher qualification in law, such as LL.M., M.Phil in Law, Ph.D. in Law shall be entitled to get three additional increments, but such increments shall be released upon successful completion of the probation period.

7. Pertinently, in the proposed Rule 7-A, there is no cut-off date with regard to acquisition of higher qualification in law such as LL.M. in law, M.Phil in Law, Ph.D. in Law.

8. By subsequent communication dated 27.7.2009, the Registrar General advised the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Legal Department that insertion of Rule 7-A in 2005 Rules may not be necessary if the recommendation of granting three advance increments to the candidates having higher qualification in law w.e.f. 1.11.1999 is incorporated as an addendum to the Government Resolution No. Pay/102003/1233/D dated 16.3.2007 and