1999 (3) TMI 652 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of Typists to advance increments on acquiring LL.B. degree.
2. Entitlement of Steno-Typists to advance increments on acquiring LL.B. degree.
3. Relevance of LL.B. degree to the posts held by the employees.
4. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in granting increments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of Typists to Advance Increments on Acquiring LL.B. Degree:
The primary issue in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(c) No. 10167/97 was whether typists working in the Subordinate Courts were entitled to advance increments upon acquiring an LL.B. degree. The appellants contended that the acquisition of an LL.B. degree was not relevant to the post of typist, as previously decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Md. Azamathulla Khan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996(1)ALT432. The High Court, however, had granted the advance increment to the writ petitioners, stating that the post of typist was equivalent to that of Junior Assistant, and hence, the typists could not be denied the increment. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning, emphasizing that the earlier judgment in Md. Azamathulla Khan's case had become final and that the acquisition of an LL.B. degree was not relevant to the post of typist. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed W.P. No. 20512/96.

2. Entitlement of Steno-Typists to Advance Increments on Acquiring LL.B. Degree:
The other five Civil Appeals involved the entitlement of Steno-Typists to advance increments on acquiring an LL.B. degree. The respondents argued that the judgment in Md. Azamathulla Khan's case had implicitly recognized the relevance of an LL.B. degree for those taking dictations, which included Steno-Typists. The Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation, noting that the relevant passage in Md. Azamathulla Khan's case referred to those taking down dictations of judgments, which applied to Steno-Typists. The Court directed the inclusion of Steno-Typists in G.O. No. 142 dated 3.4.96 and upheld their entitlement to advance increments, subject to verification of whether they had already received an increment for another higher qualification.

3. Relevance of LL.B. Degree to the Posts Held by the Employees:
The Supreme Court examined the relevance of the LL.B. degree to the posts held by the employees, as stipulated in G.O. Ms. No. 182 dated 17.7.87. The Court acknowledged that the acquisition of higher qualifications should be relevant to the post held by the employee. In the case of typists, the Court upheld the earlier judgment that an LL.B. degree was not relevant. However, for Steno-Typists, the Court found that the degree was relevant, as it contributed to their efficiency in taking dictations of judgments.

4. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in Granting Increments:
The High Court had applied Article 14 of the Constitution of India to grant increments to typists, arguing that denying them the benefit while granting it to Junior Assistants would violate the principle of equality. The Supreme Court, however, held that the application of Article 14 was not appropriate in this context, as the earlier judgment in Md. Azamathulla Khan's case had already established that the LL.B. degree was not relevant to the post of typist. The Court emphasized that the distinction based on the relevance of the qualification was valid and reasonable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal concerning the typists, setting aside the High Court's judgment and denying them the advance increments. For the Steno-Typists, the Court upheld their entitlement to the increments, subject to verification of their qualifications, and directed their inclusion in the relevant Government Order. The Court also suggested that the High Court on the administrative side reconsider the relevance of the LL.B. degree for various posts and recommend any necessary changes to the Government.