TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 28.9.95 in Md. Azamathulla Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1996(1)ALT432 . 3. We shall first take up Civil appeal arising out of SLP(c) No. 10167/97 which is filed against judgment in W.P. No. 20512/96. Here the two writ petitioners are typists working in the Subordinate Courts. This Civil appeal stands on a separate footing from the other five Civil Appeals wherein the writ petitioners are Steno-Typists. We shall, therefore, refer to the facts in W.P. No. 20512/96. 4. It may be noticed that the Writ Petition No. 20512/96 was filed by the two petitioners both working in the Subordinate Courts in Andhra Pradesh. The fist writ petitioner was promoted as a Junior Assistant and later he was converted as an Additional Typist on 26.1.83 while the second writ petitioner was appointed as an Examiner and was converted as Telugu Typist on 6.2.85. It was stated before us that both had passed the LL.B. examination after they were appointed as Typists. In the writ petition they claimed an advance increment as permitted by GO Ms. No. 182/Finance and Planning (F.W.P.R.C.-I) Department dated 17.7.87. They claimed that inasmuch as they were having higher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s case. We do not propose to go into the history of these administrative orders. It will, however, be sufficient to start with GO. Ms. No. 182 dated 17.7.87 to which we have already made a reference. 8. That G.O. was issued pursuant to the recommendations of the Pay Commission to the effect that certain advance increments should be given on the basis of possession or acquisition of higher qualifications in the revised pay scales of 1986. The conditions for grant of advance increment are set out in paragraph 4 of the said G.O. which reads as follows : In this connection the following instructions are issued. (a) No advance increment shall be admissible to those possessing only the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post. (b) The higher qualifications, the acquisition of which entitles one for additional increments now being sanctioned should be relevant to the post held by them. (c) The advance increment is to be given only once in the category in which he was working at the time of acquiring the additional qualification. (d) The advance increment in the revised pay scales, 1986 will be admissible only to those who acquire the additional qualifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be disposed of by the judgment in Md. Azamathulla Khan's case. The High Court struck down the cut off date 1.7.1986 as it found no nexus between the prescription of the date and the objects sought to be achieved. However the High Court held that the acquisition of LL.B. degree was not relevant so far as the work of Record Assistants. Typists. Copyists, Baillif, Amin, Process Servers etc. who according to the High Court were lower than in status than Junior Assistants. The High Court also held that the High Court employees and Sheristadars namely, Assistant Registrars, Section Officers, Deputy Section Officers Court Masters, Court Officers, Translators, Assistants both junior and senior and all ministerial employees including Sheristadars squarely fell within G.O. Ms. 182 inasmuch as a law degree was relevant so far as these posts were concerned and, therefore, the officers holding the above posts were entitled to advance increments in accordance with the above G.O. Ms. No. 182 dated 17.7.87. The Writ Petition, therefore, stood allowed partly so far as some of the categories were concerned and partly dismissed so far as other categories were concerned. It stood dismissed so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additional increments after acquiring a law degree. This G.O. was interpreted by the High Court to mean that those promoted to the post equivalent to the post of junior Assistants should also be given the benefit of the additional increments. On the above reasoning, the Writ Petition No. 20512/96 was allowed. 13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the judgment of the High Court in Md. Azamathulla Khan's case had negatived the claim of typists for additional increments on the ground that LL.B. degree was not relevant so far as their post was concerned and that judgment had become final and, therefore, the Division Bench in the impugned judgment, could not have deviated from Md. Azamathulla Khan's case. Alternatively, it should have referred the matter to a Full Bench if it felt that typists should also be held entitled to an advance increment. In any event, the reasoning that the persons holding posts equivalent to that of Junior Assistants would also be entitled to the advance increments was bad. The original G.O. 182 dated 17.7.87 which was extended to the Judicial Department by G.O. 142 dated 3.4.96 after the judgment in Md. Azamathulla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of some of the other categories including typists which were denied the benefit of advance increments earlier, acquisition of LL.B, degree would be useful and would improve the efficiency it would then the necessary for the Government to re-consider the matter afresh giving adequate weightage to the opinion of the High Court. In that event, it would also be necessary for the Government to extend the benefit to some other categories also. However, we are of the view that it would be open to the Government to extend benefit prospectively. Subject to the above observations, C.A. arising out of SLP (c) No. 10167/97 is allowed and the judgment of the High Court in W.P. No. 20512/96 is set aside. 17. With regard to the other five Civil Appeals, we have already mentioned that in all of them the respondents-writ petitioners are Steno-Typists. Learned Counsel for the State, Shri K. Ram Kumar has contended that the case of Steno-Typists stands on the same footing as Typists and the High Court has erred in these five writ petitions in granting the benefit of advance increment to steno-typists on the ground of acquisition of LL.B. degree. 18. Shri Y. Raja Gopala Rao, the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 24.6.96 and in that case another Division Bench of the High Court applied Md. Azamathulla Khan's case rightly. The State had not challenged the judgment in W.P. No. 11063/96 earlier but has now chosen to file a special leave petition belatedly with an application for condonation of delay of about two years. 21. The learned Counsel for the State Shri K. Ram Kumar, on the other hand, submitted that a general reading of the judgment in Md. Azamathulla's case shows that Steno-Typists were dealt with on par with Typists. The learned Counsel also mentioned that according to paragraph 4(c) of G.O. Ms. No. 182 dated 17.7.87, an employee working in a category would not be entitled to an additional increment on acquisition of higher qualification more than once and, therefore, in any event, even assuming that the various Steno-Typists-respondent could claim that acquisition of LL.B. degree was relevant for the post of steno-typist, in cases where a steno-typist got an additional increment upon obtaining a graduate degree after he had been appointed as Steno-Typist, he would not be entitled to a further advance increment on acquisition of the LL.B. degree. While working in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
