Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.72 seconds)State Of Bihar vs Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors on 20 March, 2009
8. With regard to the sanction ol advance increment by the
Government to one Dr. (Thiru.) G.Thirunavukkarasu, then
Scientific Officer, Forensic Sciences Department, in G.O. (Ms.)
No.272, Home (Police.XVIII) Department, dated 11.05.2011, for
having acquired Ph.D. degree qualification, it is observed that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in "State of Bihar vs. Upendra
http://www.judis.nic.in
39/54
WA No.3378 of 2019
and CMP No.21655 of 2019
Narayan Singh and others [2009 (4) SCALE 282]. while deciding the
issue as to whether the benefit of a wrong order can be claimed
bv others, has held as follows:-
All India Judges Association And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 March, 2002
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 pay- scales
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.
Rattan Singh And Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 7 April, 1989
(13). A somewhat similar artificial distinction drawn between
the Masters appointed with higher qualification and those
acquiring higher qualification while in service, for the purpose of
grant of higher pay, was annulled by a Division Bench of this Court
in Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana 1995 (1) SCT 711, holding as
follows:- "11. Circular dated 9.3.1990 issued by the Government of
Haryana, in our opinion, cannot be used to deny relief to the
petitioners. A careful perusal of that circular shows that the issue
http://www.judis.nic.in
48/54
WA No.3378 of 2019
and CMP No.21655 of 2019
of the same is nothing but an attempt to frustrate the rights of
the existing teachers to get higher pay from the date they
acquired higher qualifications. Distinction sought to be made out
between the persons appointed as Masters with higher
qualifications and those acquiring higher qualification while in
service is illusory and unwarranted.
P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 1983
A similar situation was
considered by the Supreme Court in PK Ramachandra Iyer and
Others v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 541. In that case petitioners,
who were holding the posts of professors were denied higher pay
scale because they did not possess a particular qualification.
While upholding their claim for grant of higher pay scale
according to the principle of equal pay for equal work, the
Supreme Court observed..." (Emphasis applied)
(14).
V. Markendeya & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 April, 1989
The right to equality in pay scale amongst 'two classes
of employees performing identical or similar duties and carrying
out same functions with the same measure of responsibility having
same academic qualifications' has been approved by the Apex
Court in a catena of decisions including in V.Markendeya and
others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1989) 3 SCC 191.
(15). We are, however, conscious of the fact that wherever
the classification made by the State in giving different treatment
to the two classes of employees is founded upon a rational criteria
and has nexus with the object sought to be achieved, the
allegation of invidious discrimination must fail. The Court would,
thus, before forming an opinion in this regard shall consider
various factors like nature of duties, functions, measures of
responsibility and educational qualifications etc. Applying these
yardsticks, we find no tangible distinction amongst the Judicial
Officers possessing higher qualification of LL.M. whether obtained
before or after joining the Judicial services.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors vs G. Srinivas Reddy & Ors on 24 February, 2006
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while considering the
scope of the orders “to consider", in the case of A.P. SRTC vs.
G.Srinivas Reddy [(2006) 3 SCC 674=2006, 3 Law Weekly 170] has
held as follows:-
Priya Sood vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 January, 2011
http://www.judis.nic.in
51/54
WA No.3378 of 2019
and CMP No.21655 of 2019
ii. the only permissible distinction shall be that the Judicial
Officers who acquire LL.M. Degree before joining the service shall
be entitled to additional increments from the date of joining the
service, while those who have acquired/acquire the same after
joining the service shall be entitled to these increments from the
date of acquisition of the higher qualification of LL.M.;
iii. the three increments granted to the Judicial Officers on
acquisition of LL.M. Degree shall be treated as 'additional
increments' in the same manner as has been directed by this Court
in Priya Sood's case (Punjab matter);
Ritu Garg & Others vs Punjab & Haryana High Court on 22 July, 2011
(7). We are informed that the Judicial Officers in the State of
Punjab have still not been able to harvest their dues due to one or
the other technicalities raised by the establishment.
http://www.judis.nic.in
47/54
WA No.3378 of 2019
and CMP No.21655 of 2019
(8). State of Haryana also did not lag behind. Firstly, it issued
a circular dated 28.10.2010 (Annexure P5) saying that the three
advance increments on account of LL.M. Degree will be provided
from the date of issue of letter dated 30.03.2010 and only '...at
the entry point those who have post-graduate qualification i.e.
LL.M. Degree'. (9). Meanwhile, some of the Judicial Offices of
Haryana approached this Court in CWP No.5966 of 2011 (Ritu Garg
and others v. Punjab & Haryana High Court &Anr.) which was
allowed by a learned Single Judge on 22.07.2011 following the
above-cited decisions in the Punjab case.
1