Supreme Court: Judicial Officer Who Got ACP Benefit Also Entitled To Additional Increment On Acquiring LLM Qualification

It can thus be seen that in the case of State of Maharashtra v Tejwant Singh Sandhu and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2286, it was sought to be argued on behalf of the State of Maharashtra that oncethe concerned judicial officer is getting the benefit of ACP, he is not entitled to annual increment on acquiring the additional qualification of LL.M. The said contention was specifically rejected by this Court. {Para 6}

7. It was observed by this Court that the grant of ACP has nothing to do with the benefit of additional increment on acquiring the additional qualification like LL.M. This Court has further observed in the aforesaid order that there is no justification for denying the benefit of advance increment at the ACP stage. It has been observed that the object and purpose of ACP is to prevent stagnation, whereas the object and purpose of advance increment for acquiring higher qualification is to improve judicial performance. This Court, therefore, specifically rejected the recommendation by the SNJPC with regard to non extension of advance increments at the ACP stage. This Court further observed that the advance increment for acquiring higher qualification shall also be made available to the officers who have acquired their degree from distance learning programmes.

8. In that view of the matter, we find that no clarification is

necessary in this regard.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State of

Nagaland and the State of Manipur that if a judicial officer is

permitted to avail additional increment at every stage of ACP it

will result in unjust enrichment. It is further submitted that if

the judicial officer gets higher pay scale on account of

promotion/ACP Scheme he will be entitled to get benefits on

multiple occasions. We find that the contention in that regard is

without substance.

10. The SNJPC has recommended an increment @ 3% of the basic

cumulative pay. For example, if a judicial officer acquires a

higher qualification of LL.M. at the level of J.M.F.C. and his

cumulative pay is Rs.10,000/-, he will be entitled to get 9% on

account of higher qualification i.e. Rs.900/-. However, when on

account of ACP, his cumulative pay becomes Rs.15,000/-, in that

eventuality on acquiring LL.M. he will be entitled to get 9% of the

cumulative pay of Rs. 15,000/- i.e. Rs.1,350/-.

11. In that view of the matter, we find that the contention that once judicial officer gets a higher pay scale on account of ACP, he would not be entitled to get the additional increments for acquiring higher qualification, is without substance and as such is rejected.

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 643/2015

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION Vs  UNION OF INDIA . & ORS.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI 3 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN 

 Date : 21-01-2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Unreasoned Decisions passed On Technical Grounds Without Entering Into Merits Are Not Binding Precedents

Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that the law

declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts

within the territory of India, i.e. the pronouncement of the law on

the point shall operate as a binding precedent on all courts within

India. Law declared by the Supreme Court has to be essentially

understood as a principle laid down by the court and it is this

principle which has the effect of a precedent. A principle as

understood from the word itself is a proposition which can only be

delivered after examination of the matter on merits. It can never

be in a summary manner, much less be rendered in a decision

delivered on technical grounds, without entering into the merits at

all. A decision, unaccompanied by reasons can never be said to

be a law declared by the Supreme Court though it will bind the

parties inter-se in drawing the curtain on the litigation. It,

therefore, follows that when no reason is given, but a special leave

petition is dismissed simpliciter, it cannot be said that there has been a

declaration of law by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.”

[underlining added]

Raj Pal’s case having been dismissed on the ground that no

sufficient cause was shown for the delay in refiling, Raj Pal’s case

ought not to have been quoted as precedent of this Court by the

High Courts.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2016 OF 2020

UNION OF INDIA  Vs  M.V. MOHANAN NAIR

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Dated:March 05, 2020.

Print Page

Whether ACP benefit given to government servant can be recovered if he could not work on promotional post due to physical disability?

We find that benefit of ACP was given to petitioner in view of service conditions to avoid stagnation. After the petitioner declined promotion, respondents rightly ordered its withdrawal. This withdrawal was not given effect to immediately though order to that effect was passed on 18.12.2006. Petitioner has retired almost 11 years thereafter. After retirement, that order is sought to be given effect to. Here provisions of Section 47(2) of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 also need to be kept in mind. Petitioner could not function on promotional post because of his disability. That disability could not have been used to deny him at least the benefit of ACP. Recovery as proposed is, therefore, unsustainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 7133 of 2017

Decided On: 25.09.2018

 Gulab Ganpatrao Hole Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Amravati and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Dharmadhikari and M.G. Giratkar, JJ.

Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 209

Print Page