Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ritu Garg & Others vs Punjab & Haryana High Court on 22 July, 2011
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 5966 of 2011
Date of Decision: 22.7.2011.
Ritu Garg & others --Petitioners
Versus
Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
& another --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.
Present:- Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Renu, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Lalit Rishi, Advocate for respondents.
***
PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) This petition has been filed by three judicial officers belonging to Superior Judicial Service and Judicial Service respectively from the State of Haryana seeking a direction for award of three additional increments to them on the basis of their higher qualifications i.e. LL.M possessed by them. They have also sought the quashment of communications (Annexures P-1 to P-3), whereby they were granted three advance increments instead of additional increments. Petitioners have relied upon the recommendations of the Shetty Commission particularly recommendation at point 8.48 which reads as under:-
"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 approximately such candidates."
This recommendation has been interpreted by this Court to mean additional increments in CWP No.6954 of 2009 decided on 24.1.2011. CWP No. 5966 of 2011 -2- The relevant observations are in para 11 of the judgement. This judgement has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 970 of 2011 (O&M) decided on 30.5.2011 with the following observations:-
"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."
In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of the judgement, referred to above. Advance increments awarded to the petitioners vide communications (Annexures P-1 to P-3) shall be deemed to be additional increments.
(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 22.7.2011.
lucky