- (1.) The petitioners are Judicial Officers serving in the State of Haryana. All of them have done their Masters in Law. They seek quashing of the Haryana Government Instructions dated 19.05.2011 Annexure P6. whereby the benefit of three additional increments on acquiring a Degree in LL.M. has been restricted qua those Judicial Officers only who possess the LL.M. Degree at the time of joining service and not to those who obtain such Degree subsequently. The petitioners have obtained their Degrees in LL.M. admittedly while in service.
(2.) In All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors., 2002 4 SCC 247, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued several directions for the improvement of service conditions including reasonable hike in the payscales of Judicial Officers. The recommendations made by the First National Judicial Pay Commission, popularly known as "Shetty Commission" in this regard, including for the grant of three advance increments to Judicial Officers having Post-graduate degree in Law, were also accepted.
(3.) While recommending uniform pattern of eligibility conditions and pay structure throughout the country for initial entry in the Judicial Services, 'Shetty Commission' also considered the desirability of granting 'Additional Benefit for Higher Qualification'. The Commission referred to the Service Rules and conditions of service prevailing in different States at the entry level and took notice in para 8.46 of its Report Vol-II of the fact that except Delhi and Rajasthan, in none of the States additional benefit to a selected candidate possessing higher qualification was admissible. The Commission thereafter made the following recommendations in paras 8.48 and 8.49 of the report Vol-II. :- "8.48 If selected candidates are having a higher qualification like Post-Graduation in Law, we recommend that three advance increments be given as it is allowed by the Delhi Administration. It is an acknowledged fact that Post-Graduation in Law is a difficult course and it is better to reward appropriately such candidates. 8.49 But we do not propose to suggest any advance increments to those who are having more experience as Advocate than the minimum prescribed. Giving any advance increment for additional Bar practice is not proper. It should not be a bonus for those who have not been able to make their way immediately after acquiring the minimum qualification.";