C.A. No, 9776 of 2003 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9776 OF 2003

K. SUBHAS BABU & ORS.     ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

ENGINEER IN CHIEF, ARMY H.QRS & ORS.  ..... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and  

order dated 8th April, 2003 passed by the Division Bench  

of  the  Kerala  High  Court  allowing  the  writ  petition  

filed  by  the  respondent  Union  of  India,  Ministry  of  

Defence.   

2. The issue that arose for consideration before the  

High Court and also before the Central Administrative  

Tribunal was whether the appellants herein were entitled  

to claim the benefit of three advanced increments from  

the dates of their appointment on the basis of higher

C.A. No, 9776 of 2003 2

qualification of Degree in Engineering.  The appellants  

claim the aforesaid benefits of grant of three advanced  

increments  on  the  basis  of  their  having  higher  

qualification.  They claim to be entitled to payment of  

such  three  advanced  increments  on  the  basis  of  the  

circulars dated 4th of February, 1969 and 2nd of June,  

1971, which provided for grant of advanced increments.  

Both the aforesaid circulars were issued by the Ministry  

of defence.   

3. In the said circulars issued, it was provided that  

non-gazetted  civilians  paid  from  Defence  Service  

Estimates and serving in technical/scientific grade and  

who possessed a Degree in Engineering would be entitled  

to  three  advanced  increments  for  possessing  such  

qualifications.  It is clearly revealed from the record  

that the aforesaid incentives and benefits which were  

allowed  in  favour  of  the  non-gazetted  civilians  

belonging to the Defence Establishments were, however,  

withdrawn  by  a  subsequent  circular  issued  by  the  

Ministry  of  Defence  on  18th of  March,  1974.   In  the  

subject of the said circular it was mentioned that the  

circular  relates  to  the  issue  of  grant  of  advanced  

increments  to  Engineering  graduates  appointed  to  the  

post for which the minimum prescribed qualification is

C.A. No, 9776 of 2003 3

an Engineering Diploma.  It was also mentioned therein  

that  the  subject  matter  of  the  circular  relates  to  

withdrawal of the aforesaid concessions on the basis of  

and  due  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Third  Pay  

Commission.   

4. After referring to the recommendation of the Third  

Pay Commission recommending withdrawal of the existing  

concession  of  grant  of  advanced  increments  to  the  

Engineering graduates appointed to the posts for which  

minimum  prescribed  qualification  is  an  Engineering  

Diploma was accepted by the Government.  Consequently  

the decision of the President was communicated under the  

aforesaid circular to the effect that the Engineering  

graduates appointed on or after December 1, 1973  to  

posts  in  the  Defence  Establishments  for  which  the  

minimum qualification for recruitment is a Diploma in  

Engineering  would  not  be  eligible  for  the  aforesaid  

concession  and  benefit  which  was  sanctioned  in  the  

Ministry's letter dated 4th of February, 1969 as amended  

by circular dated 2nd June, 1971.  Therefore, whatever  

benefits  of  advance  increments  were  granted  by  the  

earlier  circulars  were  all  withdrawn  by  issuing  the  

aforesaid circular.  

C.A. No, 9776 of 2003 4

5. Counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant,  however,  

relies  on  the  circular  issued  by  the  Department  of  

Personnel & Training, Government of India dated 28th June  

1993.  In the said circular, it is intimated that the  

Committee of Secretaries reviewed the existing Scheme of  

giving incentive in the form of advanced increments to  

those  employees  who  acquired  higher  qualification  in  

various Ministries and Departments and that it was felt  

that there was a clear need for switching over from the  

system of advanced increments to the system of payment  

of one time lump-sum incentive.  It was also stated that  

certain  guidelines  could  be  adopted  and  one  such  

guideline suggested was that incentive payment should be  

given  only  for  higher  qualification  acquired  after  

induction into service.

6. The  aforesaid  circular  does  not  appear  to  have  

laid  down  any  specific  policy  of  the  Government  for  

making  payment  of  any  advanced  increments  for  three  

years specifically to civilian employees working in the  

Defence Establishments.  The circular was issued by the  

Department  of  Personnel  and  Training  and  not  by  the  

Ministry of Defence.  The said circular also speaks of  

only a system of payment of one time lump-sum incentive  

instead of three advanced increments.  Paragraph 2 of

C.A. No, 9776 of 2003 5

the said circular is also relevant for the purpose of  

showing that the  Committee of Secretaries  directed for  

formation of a Centralized Committee under the aforesaid  

circular for drawing up the list of qualification which  

should  entitle  sanction  of  lumpsum  incentives.  

Therefore no definite decision or scheme was laid down  

therein so far as civil employees serving in the Defence  

Establishments are concerned.   

7. Reliance is also placed by the counsel appearing  

for the appellants on the circular dated 3rd June 1996  

which refers to the copy of the Ministry of Defence's  

circular  regarding  acquiring  of  higher  qualification.  

Counsel  heavily  relies  on  the  said  circular  and  

particularly on the contents that the Department's O.M.  

dated  31st January,  1995  were  applicable  from  the  

financial year 1993-94 and also on the fact that persons  

who were granted advanced increments prior to financial  

year 1993-94 would continue to draw advanced increments  

and  that  persons  who  acquired  higher  qualification  

examination on or after 1.4.1993 are to be granted lump-

sum amount as an incentive under the new Scheme.   

8. We fail to understand as to how the said circular  

also becomes applicable to the cases of the appellants

C.A. No, 9776 of 2003 6

as no case is made out that the appellants at any stage  

were granted advanced increments prior to the financial  

year  1993-94.   Only  those  persons  who  were  getting  

advanced increments prior to financial year 1993-94 were  

continuing to draw advanced increments.   The appellants  

were  never  granted  any  such  advanced  increments  and  

their prayer for grant of the said benefit was rejected  

by  the  Ministry  of  Defence.   The  High  Court  has  

considered  the  issue  raised  before  it  and  after  an  

indepth study of those circulars the High Court has come  

to the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled  

to claim the aforesaid benefit.  The High Court has also  

recorded  that  the  appellants  are  not  entitled  to  the  

aforesaid  benefit  as  the  Ministry  of  Defence  has  

withdrawn  such  benefit  specifically  by  issuing  the  

notification   on  18th March,  1974.   Considering  the  

aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of  

the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the  

order passed by the High Court.  We, therefore, find no  

merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.  

9. However, before parting with the records, we may  

record the submission of the counsel appearing for the  

appellants that the appellants have already been paid  

benefit  in  terms  of  the  order  passed  by  the  Central

C.A. No, 9776 of 2003 7

Administrative Tribunal and that some of the appellants  

have since retired from service and therefore should not  

be directed  to recover the amount from the appellants.  

We have considered the said prayer.  The High Court had  

directed  for  restoration  of  the  amount,  however  

considering the contention of the appellants to grant  

liberty  to  the  appellants  to  file  a  representation  

before  the  respondents  for  waiver  of  the  aforesaid  

amount, Mr. Doabia, the learned Senior Counsel appearing  

for the respondents also states that if a representation  

is filed by the appellants the same shall be considered  

by giving due weightage to the contentions raised in the  

said representation.

10. In that view of the matter, the appellants may  

file their representations within two weeks  which shall  

be considered and disposed of in terms of the statement  

made by the counsel for the respondents as expeditiously  

as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks  

from the date of the said representation.

   .........................J      [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA]

    .........................J          [ANIL R. DAVE]

C.A. No, 9776 of 2003 8

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 07, 2011.