- (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 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 v. P. Narasinga Rao, 1968 AIR(SC) 349; V. Markendeya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1989 3 SCC 191; State of Rajasthan v. Gopi Kishan Sen, 1993 Supp1 SCC 522; Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, 1994 2 SCC 521; Rajasthan State Electricity Board Accountants Association, Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, 1997 3 SCC 103; Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy, 2004 1 SCC 347; M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association v. State of M.P., 2004 4 SCC 646; and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Sant Raj Singh, 2006 9 SCC 82.;