Arbitrary cutoff dates cannot deny senior Medical Officers advance increments granted to their juniors.

The petitioners, serving Medical Officers, challenged the cut-off date of 1 January 2014 contained in the State’s Circular dated 23 April 2015.

The circular granted three advance increments to Medical Officers possessing postgraduate degrees and two advance increments to those possessing postgraduate diplomas, but only where they had been selected through the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission after the cut-off date.

The petitioners sought quashing of the cut-off date and extension of the circular’s benefits from their respective dates of joining, including arrears and consequential benefits.

They relied on the decision in Dr. Ritesh Kansal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 8391 of 2015, decided on 19 June 2026, concerning the same controversy.

The State conceded that the present case was identical to that earlier case.

Whether the cut-off date of 1 January 2014 prescribed in the Circular dated 23 April 2015 was arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly when similarly qualified Medical Officers appointed after that date received advance increments while the petitioners did not?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of three or two advance increments, according to their postgraduate degree or diploma, from the date of joining, along with consequential monetary benefits?

Whether the decision in Dr. Ritesh Kansal applied to the petitioners mutatis mutandis?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the constitutional principle of equality and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16, holding that similarly situated employees cannot be subjected to an unjustified distinction based solely on an artificial cut-off date.

The Court relied on the rule that a senior employee should not receive lower pay than a junior employee in the same cadre and that pay may be stepped up to remove such anomaly, as recognised in Er. Gurcharan Singh Grewal v. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2009) 3 SCC 94, and Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana v. Ram Sarup Ganda, (2011) 15 SCC 772.

It also considered authorities recognising pay stepping-up where a senior and junior hold the same post or cadre but the junior receives higher pay, including Pallab Kanti Chattopadhyay v. Union of India, Virender Parshad v. State of Haryana, and Government of NCT of Delhi v. Vandana Panwar.

The Court noted that the petitioners and Medical Officers appointed after 1 January 2014 belonged to the same service and cadre, were selected through the same MPPSC process, and possessed equivalent recognised postgraduate qualifications.

The only basis for denying the petitioners advance increments was that their appointments preceded the specified date.

The State did not disclose any rational or legally defensible basis for fixing 1 January 2014 as the cut-off date.

The resulting anomaly was that junior Medical Officers appointed after that date received higher salaries than the petitioners.

Applying the principle that a senior cannot be paid less than a junior and that pay must be stepped up to remove such an anomaly, the Court followed its earlier decision in Dr. Ritesh Kansal, which had quashed the same cut-off date and directed extension of the advance-increment benefits to similarly placed Medical Officers.

Since the State expressly accepted that the present case was identical, no separate factual or legal examination was required.

Consequently, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the Circular dated 23 April 2015, including the applicable advance increments for holding postgraduate degrees or diplomas, together with consequential benefits such as arrears and revised salary.

The directions and time-limit contained in the earlier judgment were made applicable to the present case.