LexBHARATKUMAR SHANTILAL THAKKAR versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 1147 BHARATKUMAR SHANTILAL THAKKAR . v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER (Writ Petition (C) No. 19 of 2012) APRIL 1, 2014 [R.M~ LODHA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Judicial Service - Subordinate judiciary in the State of Gujarat - Vide Resolution dated 14.6.2012, additional benefit A B of three advance increments given to Judicial Officers who C possessed higher qualification in Jaw - Sanction of the benefit however made conditional by making it available to those who possessed higher qualification in law on or after 1. 11. 1999 - Cut-off date (1. 11.1999) prescribed in para 2 of Resolution dated 14. 6. 2012 - If wholly arbitrary - Held: A sentence in a D communication dated 27. 7.2009 made by the Registrar General of the Gujarat High Court to the Secretary to the Government ofGujarat, Legal Department created confusion which led to the cut-off date (1. 11. 1999) being provided in the Resolution dated 14. 6. 2012 - The date 1. 11. 1999 in the E above sentence is referable to implementation date for three advance increments and not as the cut-off date for acquiring the higher qualification in law - As it is, the criteria provided in para 2 of Resolution dated 14. 6.2012 is irrational - Expression "on or after 1.11.1999" in para 2 of Resolution dated 14.6.2012 to be read as "on or before 1.11.1999"- 1st National Judicial Pay Commission - Para 8.48 - Gujarat State Judicial Services Rules, 2005 - r. 7-A. F By the instant writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, inter alia, prayer was made that direction be G issued to the respondents to implement para 8.48 of the recommendations of the 1st National Judicial Pay Commission as approved by this Court. 1147 H 1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A During pendency of the writ petition, by Resolution dated 14.6.2012, additional benefit of three advance increments was given to Judicial Officers of the subordinate judiciary in the State of Gujarat pursuant to the recommendations made in the 1st Pay Commission B particularly para 8.48 thereof. In that Resolution, however, the sanction of the benefit of three advance increments was made conditional upon fulfillment of condition set-out in para 2 or para 4, as the case tnay be. The additional benefit of three advance increments was C made available to those who possessed higher qualification in law on or after 1.11.1999. D It was contended by the petitioner that the cut-off date prescribed in the Resolution was wholly arbitrary and had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Allowing the writ petition, the Court HELD: By communication dated 27.7.2009, the Registrar General of the Gujarat High Court had advised E the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Legal Department that insertion of Rule 7-A in the Gujarat State Judicial Services Rules, 2005 may not be necessary if the recommendation of granting three advance increments to the candidates having higher qualification in Jaw w.e.f. 1.11.1999 is incorporated as an addendum to the F Government Resolution No. Pay/102003/1233/D dated 16.3.2007 and given effect from 1.11.1999. It appears that the sentence "if the present recommendation of granting three advance increments to the candidates having higher qualification in law w.e.f. 1.11.1999" in the letter G dated 27.7.2009 has really created confusion which led to cut-off date (1.11.1999) being provided in the Resolution dated 14.6.2012. The date 1.11.1999 in the above sentence is referable to implementation date for three advance increments and not as the cut-off date for H acquiring the higher qualification in law. As it is, there is BHARATKUMAR SHANTILAL IHAKKAR v. STATE OF 1149 GUJARAT & ANOTHER no rationale in providing that those candidates who A possessed higher qualification in law on or after 1.11.1999 would be given advance increments. The criteria provided in para 2 is irrational. The expression "on or after 1.11.1999" in para 2 of the Resolution dated 14.6.2012 shall be read as "on or before 1.11.1999". [Paras B 8, 9 and 1 OJ [1151-F-H; 1152-A-B, E-F] All India Judges Association & Others vs. Union of India and others (2002)4 SCC 247: 2002 (2) SCR 712 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2002 (2) SCR 712 referred to Para 5 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 19 of 2012. Sanjay Parikh, Mamta Saxena, Bushra Parveen, N. Vi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.