JUDGMENT
G.C. Bharuka, J.
1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to grant two premature increments to the petitioner in accordance with Rule 86 of the Bihar Service Code read with the Government decisions contained in Memo No. 12386/AgricuIture dated 19.8.l965 (Annexure-1) and in Memo No. 10195/Agriculture, dated 8th July, 1970 (Annexure-2).
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is an officer in the Agriculture Department of the State of Bihar. It appears that in 1974 the petitioner was recruited by Rajendra Agriculture, University and the Agriculture Department relieved him on deputation basis. It seems that subseuquently in 1982 his services were taken back by the department. In the meantime on the 20th May, 1973, the petitioner was awarded Ph.D. degree. The subject of his research was “Response of Dwarf wheat varieties to different levels of Nitrogen, Fertilization and date of sowing.” Amittedly this subject is relating to agriculture.
3. By a notification dated 22.5.1975 the petitioner was promoted to Class II post of Bihar Agriculture Service (Junior Branch). Thereafter because of merger of cadres from 1.1.1978 he became an officer in the category of Class II (Senior Branch) of Bihar Agriculture service.
4. Rule 86 of the Bihar Service Code, inter alia, provides that the State Government may in exceptional circumstance grant a premature increment of a Government servant on a time-scale of pay. It seems that pursuant to this rule from time to time certain decisions were being taken by the Agriculture Department for granting premature increment to its officers on fulfilling certain conditions. In this case the prayer for premature increment is primarily based on the Government decision us contained in Annexure ‘2’ referred to above, which is a communication from the Deputy Secretary to the Government Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandary, to the Accountant General, Bihar, and reads as under:
In continuation of Government Order No. 12386, dated the 19th August, 1965, I am directed to say that the State Government have been pleased to decide that two advance increments over the pay fixed will also be admissible to the officers of Class II (Senior Branch) of the Bihar Agriculture service who have obtained the Ph.D. degree from any Indian University subject to the condition that the Ph.D. degree has been obtained in a subject relating to Agriculture.
5. Admittedly after the aforesaid decision of the Government, which was taken in 1970 the petitioner obtained his Ph.D. decree in a subject relating to agriculture from an Indian University. On 1.1.1978 he became an officer in the category of class II (Senior Branch) of Bihar Agriculture service. Therefore, the petitioner on 1.1.1978, fulfilled all the conditions necessary for availing the privilege of two advance increments and, as such, acquired a legal right to get two advance increments on and from 1.1.1978.
6. The respondents have denied the benefit of aforesaid right of two advance increments to the petitioner on the ground that the Government has withdrawn the facility of giving two advance increments as per its decision contained in Memo No. 1690, dated 21.3.1985 (Annexure-1). A communication to this effect was made to the petitioner vide a letter dated 20.7.1983 (Annexure-9) where by it has been stated that now it is not possible to give advance increments to the petitioner in terms of the earlier decision of the Government contained in Annexure-2.
7. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am clear in my mind that the decision of the Government as contained in Annexure-8 does not have any retrospective operation. It means that this decision taken in 1985 does not purport to withdraw the rights already accrued to the officers of the Agriculture Department like the petitioner pursuant to the earlier decisions of the Government as contained in Annexures-1 and 2. By Annexure-8 the Government neither intended to withdraw the advance increments already granted to its officers prior to 21.3.1985 nor any such decision on the facts at hand could have been held to be reasonable and legally valid. Any such construction of Annexuro-8 will also be hit by the principles of promissory estoppel. The Government once having promised to its employees to grant certain benefits on their obtaining Ph.D. degree could not have been allowed to resile from that promise. This doctrine now stands fully established in the sphere of administrative law in India. To quote Lord Denning in High Trees Case, “a promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted upon, and in fact acted upon is binding.” Explaining the implication of this doctrine, the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India , has said that:
…all that is now required is that the party asserting the estoppel must have acted upon the assurance given to him. Must have relied upon the representation made to him. It means, the party has charged or altered the position by relying on the assurance or the representation.
8. In the above view of the matter, it has to be held that the decision of the Government contained in Annexure-8 can only be applied prospectively, that is to say, it can apply only to such officers of the department, who have obtained their Ph.D. degree after the latter decision of the Government contained in Annexure-8 withdrawing that facility.
9. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, to communication made to the petitioner vide letter dated 20.7.1985 as contained in Annexure-9 by which he has been denied the advance increments inquashed. The respondents are directed to grant benefit of two advance increments to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-2 from 1.1.1978. Arrear of salary calculated on the above basis should be paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of communication of this order with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The petitioner is also entitled to cost of Rs. 500 which should also be paid to him along with the arrears of salary.
10.The writ application is thus allowed.