IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16642 of 1989 Date of Decision: September 09, 2009 Dr. Mohinder Singh Gehlon .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant benefit of two advance increments in view of qualification of the petitioner viz. M.Sc. in Dairying, in accordance with policy decision of the State Government, Annexure P-2 dated 4.4.1963. Further prayer is for grant of consequential benefits. Order, Annexure P-2, issued by the Under Secretary to Government, Forest & Animal Husbandry Department indicates that the Government had agreed to grant two advance increments to Veterinary Assistant Surgeons possessing the qualification of M.V.Sc. and three advance increments to persons holding Doctorate viz. Ph.D or B.Sc. subject to the condition that these qualifications are obtained at one’s own expense. CWP No.16642 of 1989 [2] Written statement has been filed in which the stand has been taken that the petitioner had taken a degree of Masters of Science in Dairying. On behalf of the respondents, it is the pleaded case that only those persons were eligible for benefit under Annexure P-2 who had passed M.V.Sc. or Doctorate. The petitioner, however, does not possess either of the degrees and therefore, is not entitled to benefit under Annexure P-2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any material to indicate that M.Sc. in Dairying would be equivalent to M.V.Sc or Doctorate. I find that case of the petitioner is not covered under Annexure P-2 and petitioner is not entitled to benefits thereunder. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 09, 2009 JUDGE Avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?