K. Subhash Babu & Ors vs Engineer-In-Chief,Army Headquarters ...

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which were allowed in favour of the non-gazetted civilians belonging to the Defence Establishments were, however, withdrawn by a subsequent circular issued by the Ministry of Defence on 18th of March, 1974.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.

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.

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.