A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji delivered the judgment while allowing writ appeal preferred by retired Justice A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, a former District Judge who was subsequently elevated to the High Court.

The dispute arose from the recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission, popularly known as the Shetty Commission, constituted by the Government of India in 1996 pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India [(1992) 1 SCC 119].

The Shetty Commission, in its report submitted on November 11, 1999, recommended that the revised pay scales should be deemed to have come into force from January 1, 1996, while the monetary benefits would be payable from July 1, 1996.

One of the recommendations of the Commission was the grant of three advance increments to Civil Judges (Junior Division) possessing higher qualifications, including a postgraduate degree in Law.

The Supreme Court approved the recommendations, with certain modifications, by judgment dated March 21, 2002.

The Kerala Government subsequently accepted the recommendations through an order dated March 28, 2007. However, it initially restricted the benefit to judicial officers appointed after that date. The restriction was later challenged before the High Court and set aside, with the benefit ultimately being extended to eligible Munsiffs/Magistrates with effect from July 1, 1996.

Since the “Shetty Commission Report” specified the benefit of three advance increments to Civil Judges, a question subsequently arose as to whether directly recruited District Judges possessing postgraduate qualifications in Law at the time of their recruitment would also be entitled to the three advance increments.

The High Court's Finance Committee of Judges, in its minutes dated July 9, 2013, took the view that such officers should also receive the benefit. The Committee observed that the Shetty Commission could not have intended to exclude District Judges at the entry cadre, as such exclusion would amount to hostile discrimination.

Acting on the Committee's decision, the High Court Registry addressed the State Government on July 17, 2013, requesting extension of the benefit to directly recruited District Judges possessing a postgraduate degree in Law at the time of entry into service.

The Government agreed in principle through an order dated November 22, 2013, but stipulated that the benefit would operate only prospectively.

The High Court thereafter repeatedly requested the Government to extend the benefit retrospectively, pointing out that District Judges recruited before and after November 22, 2013, possessed identical qualifications and that restricting the benefit based on the date of recruitment would result in hostile discrimination.

The government, however, maintained that the benefit was granted as a matter of leniency and not as a matter of right. It also cited the financial implications of extending the benefit retrospectively.

The High Court Registry subsequently pointed out that only around ten officers would be covered and that the financial burden would not be substantial, as they constituted a 'vanishing group'. But the government did not accede to the request.

The appellant, who was directly recruited as a District Judge in 1995 and possessed a postgraduate degree in Law at the time of recruitment, was denied the benefit because of the prospective restriction. He was elevated as a Judge of the Kerala High Court on January 18, 2012, and retired on November 24, 2015.

The appellant initially approached the High Court seeking retrospective extension of the three advance increments from July 1, 1996. However, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Government was entitled to prescribe a cut-off date while introducing a new benefit.

Hence, the present appeal was filed.

The counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v Ramesh Chandra Mundra [2019 (4) SCT 360 (SC)], to argue that, in normal circumstances, the recommendations of the High Court cannot be rejected by the Government, but the differences ought to be resolved through amiable discussions and negotiations.

The State, on the other hand, submitted that the Single Judge was right in stating that the Government was extending a new benefit - thus being entitled to fix a particular date from which it would become eligible, is wholly justified.

Before deciding the matter, the Court observed,

“It is pertinent that, at every stage after the “Shetty Commission Report” had been published, Judicial Officers were forced to litigation ― not only in Kerala, but in other parts of the country also, for securing the benefits under it.”

The Court observed that although the Shetty Commission report did not specifically refer to District Judges in its recommendation concerning advance increments for postgraduate qualifications in Law, the High Court's Finance Committee had correctly concluded that such officers could not have been intended to be excluded.

The Bench noted that the Finance Committee had found that excluding directly recruited District Judges possessing postgraduate qualifications in Law would result in hostile discrimination.

The Court criticised the Government's position that the benefit was extended merely as an act of leniency.

“What is rather intriguing in this case is that the Government took the stand that the benefit they offered through Ext.P8 “was not a matter of right but leniency”; and that “it should not be taken for granted.”" the Court noted.

The Court noted that the benefit granted to District Judges was not an entirely new concession but an adjunct to the recommendations of the Shetty Commission.

The Court also took note of the fact that the Government had already accepted the entitlement of directly recruited District Judges to the benefit under its November 22, 2013 order. The controversy, therefore, was confined to the date from which the monetary benefit would become payable.

The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Dr. Kauser Edappagath v. State of Kerala [2017 (2) KHC 703], which had clarified that the prospective wording of the Government Order did not exclude District Judges appointed before November 22, 2013.

The Court thus noted that the Government could not prescribe a separate prospective cut-off date for the benefit when the underlying recommendations had already fixed July 1, 1996, as the date from which monetary benefits were payable.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra, the Bench observed that the two institutions must act cohesively and in a spirit of collaboration.

It held that the Government could not have rejected the High Court's request, particularly after accepting the Shetty Commission recommendations in relation to Munsiff-Magistrates and extending the corresponding monetary benefits to them from July 1, 1996.

The Court thus quashed the Government Order dated November 22, 2013, to the extent that it restricted the benefit to prospective operation. It also set aside the subsequent Government communications refusing to extend the benefit retrospectively.

The Court directed that the appellant and similarly placed judicial officers would be entitled to the three advance increments under the Government Order with effect from July 1, 1996.

Counsel for Appellant: George Poonthottam (Sr.), Nisha George, A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan

Counsel for Respondents: K.C. Vincent (Addl. AG), M. R. Anison, P.M. rafeek (Sr. GP)