Holding

The earlier High Court judgment in Azamathulla Khan’s case is final and cannot be overridden for typists, but the LL.B. degree is relevant to steno‑typists, entitling them to the advance increment.

Summary

The case concerned whether court typists and steno‑typists were entitled to an advance increment under Government Order No. 182/87 after acquiring an LL.B. degree. The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed against High Court judgments that granted such increments to two typists and several steno‑typists, arguing that the earlier High Court decision in Mohd. Azamathulla Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh held that an LL.B. was not relevant to the post of typist and that decision was final. The Supreme Court held that the Azamathulla Khan judgment was indeed final and the High Court could not override it by invoking Article 14, but it could be asked to reconsider the relevance of the qualification for typists and recommend to the Government. The Court allowed the State’s appeal concerning the typists, setting aside the High Court order granting them increments, while it dismissed the State’s appeal concerning the steno‑typists, holding that the LL.B. degree was relevant to their duty of taking down dictations and thus they were entitled to the increment. The judgment therefore partially allowed the appeals and directed the Government to consider extending the benefit prospectively where appropriate.

Issues considered

Whether typists are entitled to an advance increment on acquiring an LL.B. degree under GO No. 182/87.
Whether the High Court could deviate from the earlier High Court judgment in Azamathulla Khan’s case by applying Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether steno‑typists are covered by the provision for advance increments on acquiring an LL.B. degree.
Interpretation of the relevance clause in GO No. 182/87 and its applicability to different court employee categories.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

advance incrementhigher qualificationLL.B. degreetypiststeno‑typistArticle 14government orderservice lawfinality of judgment

Judgment

\.

A THE SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING
DEPARTMENTS AND ORS. ETC. ETC. ~[
JI.
SALADA S. RAO AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

MARCH 16, 1999
B
......
(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,
doubt expressed about the correctness of the Azamathulla Khan's t
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
petitions filed by them. Hence this appeal by the State. ~
c
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 REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.

A 1.2. The judgment inAzamathulla Khan's* case has no doubt become
final. The Division Bench took the view that for certain categories of officers
in the High Court and Subordinate Courts the acquisition of LL.B degree
~c
was not relevant and there were certain doubts about the correctness of the
said opinion expressed by the High Court. The High Court should be
allowed to re-consider the matter and recommend to the Government as to
B in respect of which post or posts including typists which were held earlier
,,_
as not entitled to the advance increment, the High Court would opine that
1
the acquisition of LL.B degree would add to their efficiency.
[1116-G-H; 1117-A]
1.3. In the event of the High Court coming to the conclusion that in
c respect of some of the other categories including typists which were denied
the benefits of advance increments earlier, acquisition of LL.B degree
would be useful and would then be 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 Govern-
D ment to extend the benefit to some other categories also. However, it would
be open to the Government to extend the benefit prospectively. [1117-C]
'I-
2. With respect to the respondent steno-typists the passage from the
judgment of Azamathulla Khan's* case clearly refers to "those taking down
dictations of judgments" and those words are clearly referable to steno-
E typists because it is to them the judgments are dictated. [1119-D]

*Mohd. Azamathulla Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 1 ALT,
referred to.

F Cl'~'IL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1525 of ..,
1999 Etc. ,.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.96 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 20512 of 1996. '">:

G P.P. Rao, K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha G. Nair, Santinarayan and Y.
Subba Rao for the Appellants. /

Y. Raja Gopala Rao for the Respondents. ~

H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
,•
...- j

/

SECY. FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMEN"IS v. SALADAS. RAO (M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 1111

.> M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted. A
These are six appeals preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh
against the Judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. b C.A. arising
out of SLP© No. 10167/97 the appellants have questioned the correctness
of the judgment of the High Court in W.P. No. 20512/96. The judgment
under appFal in the above case was followed by the High Court in W.P. B

• No. 3696/97 by its judgment dated 26.3.97. WP No. 12883/97 was allowed
on 14.10.97, WP_. 16083/97 was allowed on 27.10.97, WP. 1426/97 was
allowed on 9.9.97, following the judgment dated 26.3.97 in W.P. No.
3696/97. So far as C.A. arising out of SLP© No. 13440/98 is concerned, it
arises out of W.P. 11063/96 which was allowed much earlier on 24.6.96, c
following an earlier judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated
28.9.95 in Md. AzamathullaKJian v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 1 ALT
432.

We shall first take up Civil appeal arising out of SLP© No. 10167/97
..,, D
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
i 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.
E
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 coverted as Telugu F
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 qualification of LL.B. degree after
appointment as typists, they were entitled to one advance increment as G
mentioned in this G.O. The appellant-State contended that the question
whether the typist was entitled to an advance increment was already
"""""' decided by a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 28.9.95
in Md. Azamathulla Khan and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 1
ALT 432 and that in the said judgment it was held that amongst others, H
.J_.\. ,,\Jrl.1
1112 SUPREME COl:JIRT'REPORTS. [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A typists were not entitled to an advance increment on passing LL.B. inas-
much as the acquisition of the said degree had no relevance so far as their
work was concerned. Clause (b) of paragraph 4 of GO Ms. No. 182 dated
17.7.87 provides as follows :

"The higher qualifications, the acquisition of which entitles one for
B additional increments now being sanctioned should be relevant to
the post held by them." ·j.

..
According to the State, the Division Bench in Azamathulla Khan's
case had already decided that certain categories including the typists were
not entitled to advance increments as the acquisition of LL.B. degree was
c not relevant to the post of typist. The High Court in its judgment in W.P.
No. 20512/96 under appeal dated 26.12.96 after noticing that in the earlier
judgment of the High Court it was held that LL.B. degree had no relevance
to the post of typist, however, observed that the post of typist was
"equivalent" to the post of Junior Assistant and for that reason the typist
D could not be denied the advance increment. On that basis, the High Court, ..
in the impugned judgment granted the advance increment to the two writ
petitioners (respondents herein). The High Court also held that the sub-
~
sequent GO. Ms. No. 142 dated 3.4.96 which was issued by the State Govt.
in implementation of the judgment of Azamathulla Khan's case would not
come in way of grant of these advance increment to the writ petitioners.
E
It is against this judgment that the Civil Appeal has been preferred
by the State of Andhra Pradesh. In this appeal we have heard the submis-
sions of learned senior counsel for the appellant Mr. P.P. Rao. The writ
petitioners (respondents herein) who were served have remained ex-parte.

F The history of the various Government orders in connection with the
~

advance increments issued from time to time has been set out in the earlier ,,
judgment of the High Court dated 28.9.95 inAzamathulla Khan'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
G we have already made a reference.
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
H are set out in paragraph 4 of the said G.O. which reads as follows :
SECY. FINANCE AND P!ANN!NG DEPARTMENTS "SALADAS. RAO [M. JAGANNADHARAO, J.] 1113

...... "In this connection the following instructions are issued. A
t (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 B
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.
c
(d) The advance increment in the revised pay scales, 1986 will be
admissible only to those who acquire the additional qualification
after 1st July, 1986. This will also be admissible to those recruited
directly after 1st July, 1986 if they possess the requisite additional
qualifications at the time of their appointment. D
( e) In respect of those who acquire the qualifications after 1st July,
1986 the advance increments will be admissible from the date
following the last date of examination and in respect of those
recruited directly after 1st July, 1986, the advance incn:ments will
be admissible from the date of appointment if they possess the E
requisite additional qualifications at the time of their appointment.

(f) As the advance increments are intended to provide adequate
incentive to acquire the higher qualification, the date of normal
increment will not be disturbed and the subsequent increment will
accrue on the normal date of increment. F

(g) These orders shall not apply to those who have acquired
additional qualifications before 1st July, 1986.

(h) The advance increments under this order shall be admissible G
to everybody acquiring additional qualifications irrespective of the
fact whether higher qualifications are acquired either at their own
costor at the cost of Government.

(i) The advance increment given for higher standards of study
shall be treated as personal pay and shall be paid to the H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.
I
A individual throughout the service, at that rate, at which it was
sanctioned.
< 1

G) The advance increments shall be equal to the rate of increments
admissible on the date on which the employee becomes eligible
for advance increments under these orders."
B
It will be noticed that according to clause (b) of paragraph 4 above,
the higher qualifica~ion must be relevant to the post held by the employee
and in view of clause (a) it should be something more than the minimum
qualification. The Government also stated in paragraph 2 of the said G.O.
C that the advance increments last sanctioned in the Revised· Scales of Pay
1978 be continued beyond 1st July, 1986 subject to the same terms and
conditions except the condition mentioned in item (i) of paragraph 4
relating to treatment of the advance increment as personal pay.

., It appears that initially the High Court of Andhra Pradesh decided
D to extend the benefits of this G.O. to all the employees working in the High
Court. But this was not approved by the Government and a batch of writ
petitions were filed which came 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
E 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 ac-
cording 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
F Court Masters, Court Officers, Translators, Assistants both junior and
senior and all ministerial employees including Sheristadars squarely fell
within G.0. 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.
G 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 far as
typists in the Judicial department were concerned.

In implementation of the said judgment the Government issued G.O.
H Ms. No. 142/Finance and Planning (F.W.P.C. - II) Department dated 3.4.96
SECY. FINANCE AND PI.ANNING DEPARTMENTS v. SALADAS. RAO (M. JAGANNADHARAO,J.] 1115

incorporating the various directions given in the judgment and squarely A
"'·-d specifying some categories which were referred to in the judgment either
~ as entitled to the benefit of advance increment or as not entitled thereto,
The benefits were to be enjoyed with effect from L7 .1986.

Inasmuch as the High Court in Md, Azamatlmlla Khan's case stated
that the acquisition of LL,B, degree was not relevant to the post of typist
B
amongst other posts, the G.O, 142 dated 3.4.96 also stated likewise but
"' even so, the two writ petitioners (respondents herein) filed W.P. No.
20512/96 and contended that they too were entitled to advance increments
notwithstanding that earlier judgment of the High Court in Md, Azamathul-
la Khan's case. This writ petition, as stated earlier, was allowed by the High c
Court holding that the fust writ petitioner was promoted as Junior Assis-
tant initially and was then posted as Additional Typist on 26.1.83, that the
said post was admittedly a post equivalent to that of Junior Assistant and
this appointment as typist was made due to administrative exigencies.
Similarly, the ~econd writ petitioner who was an Examiner was appointed
.,, D
as Telugu Typist which was also a post equivalent to the Junior Assistant
This was also done on account of administrative exigencies and in view of
the typing qualification of the second writ petitioner, In the counter af-
"' fidavits filed by the State, it was admitted that certain persons who were
juniors to writ petitioners but were promoted as Junior Assistants were
drawing additional increments after acquiring a law degree, The High E
Court, therefore, held that in the above circumstances, the provisions of
Article 14 of the Constitution of the India would be violated if writ
petitioners were denied the benefit even when they were holding posts
equivalent to that of Junior Assistants, The High Court, further held while
arriving at this conclusion, that it was keeping in view the judgment of the
~ F
Division Bench in Md. Azamathulla Khan's case. G.O. Ms. No. 142 dated
.> 3.4.96 had expressly included Junior Assistants working in Subordinate
Courts and the Judicial Department in the category of persons entitled to
the additional increments after acquiring a law degree. This G.D. 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 G
of the additional increments. On the above reasoning, the Writ Petition No.
20512/96 was allowed.
-·+
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State submitted that
the judgment of the High Court in Md. Azamathulla Khan's case had H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A negatived the claim of typists for additional increments on the ground that b,.
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
B 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.
Azamatlwlla Khan's case, could not be extended to apply to the posts of
c typist by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The condition
that the qualification must be relevant to the post held by an employee was
a valid and reasonable condition for making a distinction.

In our view, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant-State is entitled to be accepted. The earlier judgment of the High
D Court in Md. Azamathulla Khan's case 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 to the High Court ~

to deviate from the above said judgment by applying Article 14 of the
Constitution. of India for granting relief to the two writ petitioners. Admit-
E tedly, the two writ petitioners were working as typists and, therefore, they
were squarely covered by the earlier judgment in Md. Azamathulla Khan's
case. We, therefore, do not agree with the High court. We allow this appeal
and set aside the judgment and dismiss W.P. No. 20512/96 subject however,
to some observations which we would like to make in this context.

F In the earlier judgment in Md. Azamathulla Khan's case which has ~

no doubt become final, the Division Bench took the view that for certain .
categories of officers in the High Court and Subordinate Courts the
,
acquisition of a LL.B. degree was not relevant. We have certain doubts
about the correctness of the said opinion expressed by the High Court in
G regard to the typists and we have also some doubts as to whether in regard
to some of the other categories also, the acquisition of LL.B. degree would
not be relevant. We have pointed out to th_e learned counsel for the
~-
appellant that on the question whether the acquisition of LL.B. degree
could be relevant in the sense that it would improve the efficiency of the
H typists or some of the other categories, the best judge in that matter would
SECY. FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENTS >. SALADAS. RAO (M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 1117

"'4 be the High Court on the administrative side and that the High Court A
should be allowed to re-consider the matter and recommend to the
. t
Government as to in respect of which post or posts including typists which
were held earlier as not entitled to the advance increments, the High Court
would opine that the acquisition of LL.B. degree would add to their
efficiency. B
•
.l
In the f:Vent of the High Court coming to the conclusion that in
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
c
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 © No. 10167/97 is allowed and the D
judgment of the High Court in W.P. No .. 20512/96 is set aside.
1

With regard to the other five Civil Appeals, we have already men-
tioned that in all of them the respondents-writ petitioners are Steno-
Typists. Learned counsel for the State, Shri K. Ram Kumar has contended, E
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 .
. F
> Shri Y. Raja Gopala Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent-
Steno Typists has, _however, contended that there is a passage in the
judgment in Md. Azamathulla Khan's case dated 28.9.95 that LL.B. degree
was certainly relevant so far as those who take "dictations" are concerned,
and that the said passage is referable to steno-typists and that judgment G
having become final, was binding on the Government. He contended that
G.O. Ms. 142 dated 3.4.96 which was issued by the Government in im-
plementation of the judgment in Md. Azamathulla's case ought to have
included the category of Steno-Typists, among others who were held
entitled to the advance increment. H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.

A The learned counsel for the respondent-steno typists also contended b,.
that the cause title in Md. Azamathulla's case itself shows that one Mad-
husudhana Rao who was at SL No. 8 in W.P. No. 11053/88 (Md.
Azamathulla being the first writ petitioner in that case), was himself a
steno-typist and that, therefore, the said judgment must be treated as one
in favour of the Steno-Typists. The learned counsel for the respondent
B relied upon the following passage from Md. Azamathulla Khan's case. It
•
reads as follows : ~

"As already discussed by us supra, the test is whether LL.B., degree
is a higher qualification and relevant for the posts held by the
c petitioners. Th<: duties of the Court employees in different
branches - taking down dictation of judgments, preparing cases for
hearing, preparing decrees in accordance with the judgments,
supervising service of process and execution proceedings, translat-
ing depositions of witness and documents into English, to name
only a few are all but integral part of effective Court management
D
warranting high degree of proficiency, for the attainment of which
the contributory factor is a degree in law. When the object of the
scheme of adva,nce increments as adumbrated in the two G.Os,
G.O. Ms. No. 89i and G.O. Ms. No. 182 and several other sub-
sequent orders, ·being promotion of excellence, exclusion of the
E judicial employees fulfilling the prescribed criteria clearly smacks
of arbitrariness."

The learned counsel for the respondents-steno typists also pointed
out that long before the judgment dated 26.12.96 rendered in .the case of
the two Typists in W.P. No. 20512/96, the High Court had in fact allowed
F
the W.P. 11063/96 filed by the five Steno- Typists working in Subordinate
"
Courts by a judgment dated 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
G condonation of delay of about two years.

The learned counsel for the State Shri K. Ram Kumar, on the other
hand, submitted that a general reading of the judgment in Md.
Azamathull~'s case shows that Steno-Typists were dealt with on par with
H Typists. The learned counsel also mentioned that according to paragraph
SECY. FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENTS '· SALADAS. RAO (M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 1119

... 'Cl> 4(c) of G.O. Ms. No. 182 dated 17.7.87, an employee working in a category A
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
B
• .ii a further advance increment on acquisition of the LL.B. degree. While
working in the same category, acquisition of higher qualification than the
minimum qualifications would not enable one to earn an advance incre-
ment more than once.

We are of the view that the learned counsel for the respondents-
c
Steno Typists has rightly relied upon the passage above extracted in Md.
Azamathulla's case. The said passage clearly refers to "those taking down
dictations of judgments" and those words were in our opinion clearly
referable to Steno-Typists because it is to them the judgments are dictated.
Unfortunately, in the Concluding paragraph of the judgment in Md. D
Azamathulla's case, Steno-Typists were not specifically mentioned among
1 the categories entitled to advance increments under G.O.Ms. 182 dated
17.7.87. We are, therefore, of the view that Steno-Typists are entitled to
the advance increments as mentioned in G.O.Ms. 182 dated 17.7.87 inas-
much as the acquisition of LL.B. degree was relevant to the functions E
performed by them even as per Md. Azamathulla's case. We direct in-
clusion of the category of Steno-Typists in G.O. No. 142 dated 3.4.96.

The contention of the learned counsel for the State Shri K. Ram
Kumar based on Paragraph 4(c) of G.O. Ms. No. 182 dated 17.7.87 is also
"' liable to be accepted. As already noticed, the said para 4(c) reads as F
).. follows:

"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."
G
-.i In a given case, where graduation is a minimum qualification and a
person appointed as Junior Assistant in that post on the basis of such a
minimum qualification, if he acquires an LL.B. degree later on, he would
certainly be entitled to an advance increment. Similarly, where an LL.B.
degree is a minimum qualification required for a post and a person holding H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.
A that post acquires an LL.M. degree while in the said post, he would
p'
certainly be entitled to advance increment. So far as the respondents-Steno
Typists are concerned, we do not have all the factual data relating to them
before us. If while working as Steno-Typists they had acquired one advance
increment upon acquisition of a higher qualification other than the rnini-
B mum prescribed qualification, then they would not be entitled to a further
increment while working in the same category of Steno-Typist, in the event
of their acquiring a LL.B. degree. Therefore, in each cases of the respon-
dents-Steno Typists, the fact has to be verified. Subject to the above, they
would be entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 182 dated 17.7.87. How-
ever, if any of the Steno Typists are held not entitled to increment on
C passing LL.B. because he had got one increment upon graduation, no
recovery of increments already drawn will be made. Subject to the above
modification, the above five appeals filed by the State in case of Steno-
Typists are dismissed.

All the Civil Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no
D order as to costs. .
R.K.S. Appeals disposed of.