THE SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENTS AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus SALADA S. RAO AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 1108 · Decided: 16-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

\. 
A 
THE SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING 
~[ 
DEPARTMENTS AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JI. 
SALADA S. RAO AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
B 
MARCH 16, 1999 
...... 
(M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND AP. MISRA, JJ.) 
1 
Service Law : 
c 
Advance increment-Grant of, on acquiring higher qualification by the 
employees as per Government Order--GO of the State Government providing· 
for the payment of advance increment on acquiring higher qualification 
"relevant to the post" held by an employee-Typists working in Court, got 
LL.B degree-By way of an earlier judgment of the High Court in Azamathul-
D la Khan's case*, that LL.B degree was not held to be relevant to the duty 
• 
performed by typists, held it was not proper for the High Court (on judicial 
side) to allow two advance increments to two writ petitioners-However, 
t 
doubt expressed about the correctness of the Azamathulla Khan's 
case*--Hence, Government was directed to leave it to the High Court (on 
administrative side) to examine which categories of court employees, includ-
E ing the typists, deserved to be allowed advance increment on acquiring 
LLB-However, held, that stenotypists, were entitled to advance increment, 
for the degree of LL.B was relevant in better performance of their duties as 
they were required to take down dictation of judgments-Practice and Proce-
dure. 
F 
.. 
Precedent-Judgment of a coordinate Bench of the High Court-fm-
propriety of taking a different view. 
~ 
In C.A. arising out of SLP(C) No. 10167 of 1997 the correctness of · 
the judgment of the High Court is challenged. The respondents were 
G typists working in subordinate courts. Both of them had passed LL.B after 
appointed as typists. As per GO Ms. No. 182/Finance and Planning 
(F.W.P.R.C-I) Deptt. dated 17.7.1987, they claimed one advance increment 
,<(--· 
as they were LL.B degree holders. The question of advance increment was 
decided by the High Court in Azamathulla Khan's* case and it was the 
H contention of the State that this judgment was not applicable to them as 
1108 
I 
SECY. FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENTS v. SALADA S. RAO 1109 
~ 
typists were not entitled to an advance increment on passing LL.B. inas· A 
much as the acquisition of this degree had no relevance to their work. High 
Court, on the basis of Azamathulla Khan's case* held that LL.B degree had 
no relevance to the post of typist. However, it observed that the post of 
typist was ec1uivalent to the post of junior assistant and for that reason 
the typist could not be denied the advance increment. The High Court also B 
..... 
held that the subsCl1uent GO. Ms. No. 142 dated 3.4.1996, which was issued 
~ 
by the State in implementation of the judgment of Azamathulla Khan's* 
case would not come in the way of grant of these advance increments. With 
regard to the other Civil Appeals, the respondents were Steno-typists, and 
their claim was also allowed by the High Court in the respective writ c 
petitions filed by them. Hence this appeal by the State. 
~ 
On behalf of respondent typists, it was submitted by the appellant 
that Azamathulla Khan's* judgment had negatived the claim of typists for 
additional increment on the ground that the LL.B degree was not relevant 
"' 
so far as their post was concerned and that jndgment had become final, D 
and therefore, the High Court· erred in deviating from Azamathulla 
-t 
Khan's* judgment; the original G.O. 182 dated 17.7.1987 which was ex-
tended to judicial department by G.0.142 dated 3.4.1996 after Azamathulla 
Khan's* judgment, could not be extended to apply to the posts of typists 
by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution. 
E 
On behalf of the. respondent steno-typists, it was contended by the 
State that the case of the steno-typists stood on the same footing as the 
typists and hence they were also not entitled to the benefit of advance 
" 
increment on acquisition of LL.B degree. 
F 
)'.. 
Partly allowing the appeals, this Court 
~ 
HELD : 1.1. Azamathulla Khan's* judgment, clearly held. that an 
LL.B degree was not relevant to the post of typist and certain other 
categories. That judgment had become final and it was therefore, not open G 
to the High Court to deviate from the above said judgment by applying 
Article 14 of Constitution of India by granting relief to the respondent 
~,._ 
typists. Admittedly, they were working as typists and, therefore, they were 
squarely covered by Azamathulla Khan's* judgment, subject to some ob· 
servation. [1116-D-E] 
H 
1110 
SUPREME COURT R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.