IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 125 of 2009. Decided on: August 11, 2010. State of H.P. & ors. ….. Appellants. Versus Dr. Rakesh Kumar ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the appellants: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG. For the Respondent: Mr. M.S.Guleria, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) This LPA is filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.6.2009, passed in CWP(T) No. 7813 of 2008, titled Dr. Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others. The issue essentially pertains to the grant of two advance increments. A similar case was considered by this Court leading to our judgment dated 3rd March, 2010 in LPA No. 126 of 2009. The text of the judgment reads as follows: “The State is aggrieved since the learned Single Judge has interfered with the decision taken by the Government to recover the benefit of two advance increments granted to the writ petitioner. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General also submits that though the learned Single Judge has held that the recovery should not have been made without notice to the writ petitioner, liberty should have been reserved to the State to initiate de novo proceedings after issuing notice to the petitioner. Though we are impressed with the argument on principle, on referring to 2 the facts of the case, we do not think that any useful purpose would be served in that exercise. In that context, it is necessary to refer to the factual background. The factual matrix would show that the writ petitioner was granted advance increments as per Annexure PB, letter dated 3.1.1998, on the basis of the then prevailing Government instruction dated 21.7.1994, to grant two advance increments to the Doctors on acquiring higher qualification. No doubt, when the Rules were framed on 20.1.1998, the provision was not there in the Rules. But the fact remains that on the date of grant of the increments, there was a valid Government instruction ruling the field and only based on that Government decision, the advance increments were given. Therefore, merely because in the subsequent Rule framed after the grant of advance increments there was no provision for advance increments on acquisition of higher qualification, the grant already made cannot be taken away unless there is a provision in the Rules to interfere with the decision already taken to grant the increments, retrospectively. The Rules do not contain such a provision and hence it is not necessary to go into that aspect of the matter. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal since no useful purpose would be served even if liberty is granted to the Government to initiate fresh proceedings. The LPA lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.” 2. The issue is squarely covered by the judgment, as extracted above and hence the LPA is dismissed. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. August 11, 2010. ( Justice Kuldip Singh), (karan) Judge.