IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 970 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 30, 2011 The Punjab and Haryana High Court ...Appellant Versus Priya Sood and others ...Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 24.1.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1, who is a member of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch), is entitled to grant of three additional increments in lieu of her higher qualification of LL.M. The learned Single Judge has made a reference to the recommendation made by the First National Judicial Pay Commission-Shetty Pay Commission on the issue of additional benefit granted to a candidate selected for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), who possess higher qualification. 2. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was aggrieved that advance increments have been given but they are not considered as 'additional' or 'special' increments. In other words, those L.P.A. No. 970 of 2011 (O&M) 2 increments have been regarded as advance as a substitute to the annual grade increment which an officer is otherwise entitled. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge after referring to various paras of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, has come to the conclusion that the expression 'advance increment' has been interchangeably used with phrase 'additional increment'. According to the learned Single Judge the solitary object of such recommendation was to grant extra benefit to those officers who joined the judicial service with higher qualification and therefore, the word 'advance' is to connote the same meaning as the word 'additional' is understood in common parlance. The learned Single Judge further held that under no circumstance the Shetty Commission can be said to have recommended the grant of increment as a short term gain in the manner it has been construed by the appellant because such a restrictive meaning would lead to anomalous result and would bring equality amongst un-equals. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and are of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge is un-exceptionable and deserves to be sustained in law. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that the words 'advance increment' have been interchangeably used by the Shetty Commission with the words 'additional increment'. Moreover, educational qualifications are always the basis for grant of higher pay scale, as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Mysore State of Mysore State of Mysore State of Mysore v. v. v. v. P. P. P. P. Narasinga Rao Narasinga Rao Narasinga Rao Narasinga Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349 , AIR 1968 SC 349 , AIR 1968 SC 349 , AIR 1968 SC 349; ; ; ; V. Markendeya V. Markendeya V. Markendeya V. Markendeya v. v. v. v. State of Andhra State of Andhra State of Andhra State of Andhra Pradesh Pradesh Pradesh Pradesh, (1989) 3 SCC 191 , (1989) 3 SCC 191 , (1989) 3 SCC 191 , (1989) 3 SCC 191; ; ; ; State of Rajasthan State of Rajasthan State of Rajasthan State of Rajasthan v. v. v. v. Gopi Kishan Sen Gopi Kishan Sen Gopi Kishan Sen Gopi Kishan Sen, , , , 1993 Supp (1) SCC 522 1993 Supp (1) SCC 522 1993 Supp (1) SCC 522 1993 Supp (1) SCC 522; ; ; ; Shyam Babu Ver Shyam Babu Ver Shyam Babu Ver Shyam Babu Verma ma ma ma v. v. v. v. Union of India Union of India Union of India Union of India, (1994) , (1994) , (1994) , (1994) L.P.A. No. 970 of 2011 (O&M) 3 2 SCC 521 2 SCC 521 2 SCC 521 2 SCC 521; ; ; ; Rajasthan State Electricity Board Accountants Rajasthan State Electricity Board Accountants Rajasthan State Electricity Board Accountants Rajasthan State Electricity Board Accountants Association, Jaipur Association, Jaipur Association, Jaipur Association, Jaipur v. v. v. v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board Rajasthan State Electricity Board Rajasthan State Electricity Board Rajasthan State Electricity Board, (1997) 3 SCC , (1997) 3 SCC , (1997) 3 SCC , (1997) 3 SCC 103; 103; 103; 103; Government of West Bengal Government of West Bengal Government of West Bengal Government of West Bengal v. v. v. v. Tarun K. Roy Tarun K. Roy Tarun K. Roy Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347; , (2004) 1 SCC 347; , (2004) 1 SCC 347; , (2004) 1 SCC 347; M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association Officers Association Officers Association Officers Association v. v. v. v. State of M.P. State of M.P. State of M.P. State of M.P., , , , (2004) 4 SCC 646 (2004) 4 SCC 646 (2004) 4 SCC 646 (2004) 4 SCC 646; and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. v. v. v. Sant Raj Sant Raj Sant Raj Sant Raj Singh Singh Singh Singh, (2006) 9 SCC 82 , (2006) 9 SCC 82 , (2006) 9 SCC 82 , (2006) 9 SCC 82. 4. In the present case the degree of Masters of Laws would certainly bring efficiency in discharging duties by a Judicial Officer in comparison to those who do not possess such a degree. There is no real benefit of advancing advance increments if in the due course of time the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 is to become equal to those who do not have additional higher qualification. Such an interpretation adopted by the appellant would not advance the basic object of the recommendation made by the Shetty Pay Commission. Therefore, we are of the view that the instant appeal does not merit admission and the view taken by the learned Single Judge deserves to be upheld. 5. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) May May May May 30 30 30 30, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor