BHARATKUMAR SHANTILAL THAKKARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER

                    [2014] 4 S.C.R. 1147


          BHARATKUMAR SHANTILAL THAKKAR                             A
                              . v.
              STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER
               (Writ Petition (C) No. 19 of 2012)
                        APRIL 1, 2014
                                                                    B
      [R.M~   LODHA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

     Judicial Service - Subordinate judiciary in the State of
Gujarat - Vide Resolution dated 14.6.2012, additional benefit
of three advance increments given to Judicial Officers who          C
possessed higher qualification in Jaw - Sanction of the benefit
however made conditional by making it available to those
who possessed higher qualification in law on or after 1. 11. 1999
- Cut-off date (1. 11.1999) prescribed in para 2 of Resolution
dated 14. 6. 2012 - If wholly arbitrary - Held: A sentence in a     D
communication dated 27. 7.2009 made by the Registrar
General of the Gujarat High Court to the Secretary to the
Government ofGujarat, Legal Department created confusion
which led to the cut-off date (1. 11. 1999) being provided in the
Resolution dated 14. 6. 2012 - The date 1. 11. 1999 in the          E
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 - As it is, the criteria provided
in para 2 of Resolution dated 14. 6.2012 is irrational -
Expression "on or after 1.11.1999" in para 2 of Resolution          F
dated 14.6.2012 to be read as "on or before 1.11.1999"- 1st
National Judicial Pay Commission - Para 8.48 - Gujarat State
Judicial Services Rules, 2005 - r. 7-A.

    By the instant writ petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution, inter alia, prayer was made that direction be         G
issued to the respondents to implement para 8.48 of the
recommendations of the 1st National Judicial Pay
Commission as approved by this Court.

                              1147                                  H
    1148    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A     During pendency of the writ petition, by Resolution
  dated 14.6.2012, additional benefit of three advance
  increments was given to Judicial Officers of the
  subordinate judiciary in the State of Gujarat pursuant to
  the recommendations made in the 1st Pay Commission
B particularly para 8.48 thereof. In that Resolution,
  however, the sanction of the benefit of three advance
  increments was made conditional upon fulfillment of
  condition set-out in para 2 or para 4, as the case tnay be.
  The additional benefit of three advance increments was
C made available to those who possessed higher
  qualification in law on or after 1.11.1999.

        It was contended by the petitioner that the cut-off
    date prescribed in the Resolution was wholly arbitrary
    and had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
D
        Allowing the writ petition, the Court

         HELD: By communication dated 27.7.2009, the
    Registrar General of the Gujarat High Court had advised
E   the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Legal
    Department that insertion of Rule 7-A in the Gujarat State
    Judicial Services Rules, 2005 may not be necessary if the
    recommendation of granting three advance increments
    to the candidates having higher qualification in Jaw w.e.f.
    1.11.1999 is incorporated as an addendum to the
F   Government Resolution No. Pay/102003/1233/D dated
    16.3.2007 and given effect from 1.11.1999. 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
G   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
H   acquiring the higher qualification in law. As it is, there is
BHARATKUMAR SHANTILAL IHAKKAR v. STATE OF 1149
          GUJARAT & ANOTHER
no rationale in providing that those candidates who A
possessed higher qualification in law on or after 1.11.1999
would be given advance increments. The criteria
provided in para 2 is irrational. 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". [Paras B
8, 9 and 1OJ [1151-F-H; 1152-A-B, E-F]
    All India Judges Association & Others vs. Union of India
and others (2002)4 SCC 247: 2002 (2) SCR 712 - referred
to.
                                                                   c
                      Case Law Reference:
    2002 (2) SCR 712           referred to           Para 5
    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.                                             D

    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 19 of 2012.

     Sanjay Parikh, Mamta Saxena, Bushra Parveen, N. Vidya,
Anitha Shenoy for the Petitioners.
                                                                   E
    Hemantika Wahi, Jayesh Gaurav, T. Mahipal for the
Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     R.M. LODHA, J. 1. The petitioner - Bharatkumar Shantilal F
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 ofthe G
recommendations of the 1st 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         H
    1150      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A advance increments· has been given to fhe Judicial Officers of
  the subordinate judiciary in the State of ~ujarat pursuant to the
  recommendations made in the 1st Pay Commission particularly
  para 8.48 thereof. In that Resolution, however, the sanction of
  the benefit of three advance increments is conditional upon
s 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......... .

c       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.
D       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 three
        advance increments ..... .
E
       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
F 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
G 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
H
BHARATKUMAR SHANTI LAL THAKKAR v. STATE OF 1151
    GUJARAT & ANOTHER [R.M. LODHA, J.]
    Graduation in Law is a difficult course and it is better to       A
    reward appropriately such candidates.
     5. In Al/ 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 fr.om para 37 of the judgment       B
which reads as under:
    "Subject to the various modifications in this judgment, all
    other recommendations of the Shetty Commission are
    accepted."                                                        c
     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        D
(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   E
     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
                                                                      F
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          G
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 given effect from 1.11.1999.
1. (2002) 4 sec 247.                                                  H
    1152     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 4 S.C.R.


A         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
B   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
C   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
    Rules; no cut-off date has been given. As a matter of fact, Mr.
    Jayesh Gaurav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 - High
0
    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
E    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
F   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 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.
    Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                           Writ Petition allowed.