- (1.)The petitioner Bharatkumar Shantilal 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 of the recommendations of the Ist 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 advance increments has been given to the Judicial Officers of the subordinate judiciary in the State of Gujarat pursuant to the recommendations made in the Ist Pay Commission particularly para 8.48 thereof. In that Resolution, however, the sanction of the benefit of three advance increments is conditional upon 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 .........

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.

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......

(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 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.