This document summarizes a court case involving an IPS officer, P.C. Wadhwa, seeking two increments in pay for improving his qualifications while in service. The State of Haryana had issued instructions granting increments to state employees who improved qualifications, but denied it to Wadhwa claiming he was governed by central rules. The court ruled that in the absence of regulations by the central government, IPS officers serving in a state are governed by that state's rules per the All India Services rules. Prior Supreme Court precedent also supported Wadhwa's claim. The court directed Haryana to grant Wadhwa the two increments as per the state's instructions.

1. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Before: - Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.
C.W.P. No. 3265 of 1981.
Decided on 16-9-1981.
P.C. Wadhwa, I.P.S. (Petitioner)
Vs
State of Haryana (Respondent)
For the Petitioner: - Petitioner in Person.
For the Respondent: - Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate.
All India Services (Condition of Service Residuary Matters)
Rules, 1960. Rule 2 (b) - Increments…Grant of….Petitioner an I.P.S.
Officer……State Government issuing instructions for the grant of two
increments to members of Class I, II & III State Service on
improvement of qualifications…. Petitioner improving qualifications and
claiming increments…..State Government declining to give on the plea
that petitioner was I.P.S. Officer and governed by Central Rules….
Held, that the petitioner was entitled to increments. (Para 3)
Cases referred:
1. P.C. Wadhwa vs. State of Haryana and Ors. Appeal No. 1475 (N) of
1972, decided on 5-3-1981.
2. D.D. Shri vs. Union of India and another, 1979 (3) S.L.R. 689.
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he
having passed the Master of Arts Examination appeared in the I.P.S.
competitive examination in 1951, and was selected therein. He was allocated
to the I.P.S. Cadre of the erstwhile Punjab State in 1952. On reorganisation of
the State in 1966, he was allocated to the State of Haryana. In June, 1974, he
passed the L.L.B. Examination and thus improved his qualification.
2. It is averred that the Haryana Government issued instructions on 20th
June, 1977, copy Annexure P-1, wherein it is provided that personal pay shall
be granted to all the employees belonging to Class-II and Class-III services

2. who improve their qualifications after joining Government service, if the
qualification (s) so acquired from a recognized University is/are higher than
the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post on which they were
recruited at the time of entry into Government service, In accordance with the
scales and conditions laid down therein. In the letter containing those
instructions, it is further stated that the officers who improve the qualifications
by obtaining Law degree or Post-Graduate degree would be entitled to two
increments. On July 26, 1978, the Government issued clarifications vide letter
Annexure P-2 wherein it is inter alia stated that even if an officer reaches the
maximum of his pay scale, he will be entitled to the benefit of Annexure P-1.
Later, the Government issued another Letter dated 23rd
October, 1978, copy
Annexure P-3, providing that Class-I Officers of the State service would be
entitled to the benefit of letter, Annexure P-I, read with letter, Annexure P-2.
3. It is further stated by the petitioner that the minimum qualification for
appearing in the I.P.S. Examination was B.A. degree and that by virtue of the
above said instructions, read with Rule 2(b) of the All India Services
(Conditions of Service Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to
as the Rules, he became entitled to two increments in terms of the letter dated
20th
June, 1977. He has consequently prayed that the respondent be directed
to give him two increments as personal pay for improving his qualifications
during the service.
4. The respondent has controverted the allegations of the petitioner and
has Inter alia pleaded that the decision in this regard is to be taken by the
Central Government to which the matter has been referred and, therefore, the
writ petition is not maintainable.
5. The only question that arises for determination is as to whether the
petitioner is entitled to two increments as per instructions contained in Exhibit
P.1, read with instructions Exhibits P2 and P3, and Rule 2 (b) of the Rules. It
is not disputed that the instructions have been issued by the State
Government and that the members of Class I. Class II and Class III State
Services are entitled to the benefit of the said instructions. Now, it is to be
seen whether by virtue of Rule 2(b), the petitioner is entitled to that benefit. It
will be relevant to read Rule 2(b) which is as follows:-

3. “2. Power of Central Government to provide for residuary matters-
The Central Government may, after consultation with the Governments of the
States concerned, make regulations to regulate any matters relating to
conditions of service of persons appointed to an All India Services, for which
there is no provision in the rules made or deemed to have been made under
the All India Services Act, 1951 (61 of 1951); and until such regulations are
made, such matters shall be regulated:-
(a) …….. ………. …….. ………
…….. ………. …….. ………
(b) In the case of persons serving in connection with the of fates of
a State by the rules, regulations and orders applicable to officers of the state
Civil Services, Class I, subject to such exceptions and modifications as the
Central Government may, after consultation with the State Government
concerned, by order in writing, make:-
(Emphasis supplied.)”
From a reading of the above Rule, it is evident that unless the Central
Government makes regulations to regulate any matters relating to conditions
of service of persons appointed to an All India Service, for which there is no
provision in the rules made, those matter shall be regulated in the case of
persons serving in connection in the affairs of the State by the rules
regulations and orders applicable to officers to the State Civil Services, Class
– I. Admittedly, there is no regulation made by the central Government
contrary to the instruction issued by the State Government. Thus by virtue of
the Central Services who are on the cadre of State. Therefore, the petitioner is
entitled to the benefit of the instruction contained in Annexure P-1, read with
Annexure P-2 and P-3.
1. In the above said view, I am fortified by the observations of the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1475 (N) of 1972 (P.C. Wadhwa V/s State
of Haryana and others), decided on 5th
March, 1981. The facts in that case
were that the petitioner was holding a substantive rank of Deputy Inspector
General of Police, and was serving as Commandant General, Home Guards
and Director, Civil Defence. On 15th
April, 1969, he was sent to deputation
and his services were placed at the disposal of the Haryana State Electricity

4. Board. The order of the Government sending him on the deputation protected
his emoluments, but it did not mentioned any thing about deputation
allowance. So, he claimed it on the ground that it was admissible to the Class-
1 officers of the State by virtue of the order issued by erstwhile Punjab
Government dated 28th
/ 31st
January, 1963, and, therefore, he was entitled to
it under rule 2(b) of the rules. The Haryana Government did not accede to his
request. He filed a writ petition in this court which was dismissed in limine. His
appeal was accepted by the Supreme Court. Fazal Ali, J. speaking for the
court, observed thus:-
“We are unable to read in any of these rules any prohibition or bar to
the payment of deputation allowance to an officer of the IPS Cadre on
deputation to any of the authorities mentioned in rule 2(1) above. In the
instant case the appellant was sent on deputation to the Board which is
a body wholly or substantially owned by the State Government. The
mere absence of the provision for payment of deputation allowance
cannot be interpreted to mean an absolute bar to the receipt of such
deputation allowance by an IPS Cadre Officer, if other Rules permit
such a course of action. Similarly, Rule 9 of the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954,
contains various clauses which merely protect the pay and salaries
admissible to an IPS Officer when sent on deputation. There is no
reference to any allowance or other emoluments in that Rules,
excepting pay which is clearly set out in Schedule III to those Rules.
We have gone through Sub-Rules (1) to (6) of Rule 9 and are unable to
find any limitation contained in these rules which could prevent the
appellant from getting deputation allowance.”
The above observations are fully applicable to the present case.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent has sought to urge that in view
of Rule 4 of the Rules, this court should await decision of the Central
Government to which a reference has been made by the State Government. I
regret may inability to accept the contention. The rule provides that if any
question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, or relating to the
application or interpretation of rules, regulations or orders referred to in
clauses (a) and (b) of rule 2, the Central Government shall decide the same. A
perusal of the Rule shows that it does not forbid the Court to decide the matter.

5. Moreover, Rule 2(b) has already been interpreted by the Supreme Court and
its decision is the law of the land. Therefore, after the decision of the Supreme
Court, no questions of interpretation of the Rule 2 arises so far as the facts of
the present case are concerned. He has also placed reliance on D.D. Suri vs.
Union of India and another, 1979 (3) S.L.R. 689. It is sufficient to say that the
facts of that case are distinguishable and the observations therein are of no
assistance to the learned counsel for the State.
3. For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the writ petition with costs and
direct the respondents to grant him two increments as contemplated by
Annexure P-I read with Annexures P-2 and P-3.
Petition allowed.
-------------