Page 1

1

                         REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 19 OF 2012              

     BHARATKUMAR SHANTILAL THAKKAR  ...   PETITIONER(s)                         Versus

 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER  ...   RESPONDENT(s)

J U D G M E N T

    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.

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

the services after 1.11.1999 and are  having  such  higher  qualifications  at  the time of selection, they shall be  entitled  to  get  such  three  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.

Page 4

4

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:

1    (2002)4 SCC 247

Page 5

5

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

Page 6

6

and given effect from 1.11.1999.

9. It  appears  that  the  sentence  “if  the  

present recommendation of granting three advance  

increments  to  the  candidates  having  higher  

qualification in law w.e.f. 1.11.1999”  in the  

letter  dated  27.7.2009  has  really  created  

confusion which led to cut-off date (1.11.1999)  

being provided in the Resolution dated 14.6.2012.  

The  date  1.11.1999  in  the  above  sentence  is  

referable   to  implementation  date  for  three  

advance increments and not as the cut-off date  

for acquiring the  higher qualification in law.  

This is also clear from the sentence preceding  

the  controversial  sentence  which  reads  “...the  

Government in the Legal Department have issued  

Resolution No. Pay/102003/1233/D dated 16/03/2007  

and  given  effect  to  the  same  from  01/11/1999.  

(emphasis supplied).  It is not in dispute that  

while recommending insertion of Rule 7-A in 2005

Page 7

7

Rules, no  cut-off  date has  been given.   As  a  

matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Jayesh  Gaurav,  learned  

counsel for the respondent No. 2 – High Court of  

Gujarat submits that by letter dated 27.7.2009,  

it was neither  intended nor meant that three  

advance  increments  shall  be  available  only  to  

those judicial officers who have acquired higher  

qualification in law w.e.f. 1.11.1999.   As it is  

we do not find any rational in providing that  

those  candidates  who  possessed  higher  

qualification in law on or after 1.11.1999 would  

be  given  advance  increments.  The  criteria  

provided in para 2 is irrational.  

10 We, accordingly, hold that the expression  

“on  or  after  1.11.1999”  in  para  2  of  the  

Resolution dated 14.6.2012 shall be read as “on  

or before 1.11.1999”.  

11.  Writ Petition is allowed as above with no  

order as to costs.  All financial benefits as per

Page 8

8

this order shall be paid to the petitioner as  

early as possible and in no case later than two  

months  from the date of receipt of copy  of this  

order.  This order shall also be applicable to  

all  Judicial  Officers  who  have  been  denied  

benefit of three advance increments on the basis  

that  they  acquired  higher  educational  

qualification in law before 1.11.1999.

               ............................J.                             (R.M. LODHA)

       ............................J.                    (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)

  NEW DELHI;    APRIL 1, 2014.