Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through the Director General and Anr. v. Rajinder Singh and Ors
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 21.07.2010 passed
by the High Court 1 in Writ Petition 2 filed against the order dated
1 High Court of Delhi
2 W.P.(C) Nos. 3364-65/2004
Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through the Director
General and Anr. v. Rajinder Singh and Ors.
18.07.20033 passed by the Tribunal 4. The Tribunal had allowed the
application filed by the respondents, extending them the benefit of
the scheme 5 dated 27.02.1999 in terms of which a scientist was
eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires a
Ph.D. degree in his service career.
2. Briefly the facts as are available on record are that the appellant
No.1-Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) before this
Court is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860. It is engaged in agricultural research. On 01.10.1975, the
appellant No.1 constituted two services namely Agricultural Research
Service (in short “ARS”) and Technical Service (in short “TS”). These
are governed by two sets of Service Rules. The nature of duties
performed by the incumbents employed under the two services are
totally different.
2.1 The pay scales of the employees of the Central Government
were revised on the recommendations of the Fifth Central
Pay Commission. The appellant/ICAR issued a scheme vide
letter dated 27.02.1999 to all field offices informing them
about the revision of pay scales of the scientists working with
the appellants. The communication provided for existing pay
scales and the corresponding new pay scales for the Scientists,
Scientists (senior scale), Scientists (selection grade/Senior
Scientists), Principal Scientist and other Senior Officers.
2.2 Clause (ii) of the aforesaid communication provided for
incentives for Ph.D./M.Phil. Sub-clause (d) which is relevant
for the case at hand provided that a ‘scientist will be eligible
for two advance increments as and when he acquires a Ph.D.
degree in his service career’. The aforesaid clause is the root
cause for the litigation in question.
2.3 The respondents who are working on technical side in Indian
Agricultural Research Institute (for short “IARI”), a unit under the
appellant No.1 approached the Tribunal by filing an application6
3 Passed in OA No. 2939/2002
4 Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
5 Order No. 1 (15)98-Per IV of Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi
6 Original Application No. 1536/2002
510 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
for a direction to the appellants for grant of advance increments
to them in terms of letter dated 27.02.1999 on acquiring the
Ph.D. degree as was applicable in the case of scientists. The
Tribunal vide order dated 06.06.2002 directed the appellants to
consider the representation made by the respondents claiming
the aforesaid relief.
2.4 In terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal, the appellant/
ICAR considered the representation and rejected the same vide
memorandum dated 02.08.2002. It was mentioned therein that
the appellant had categorized its staff as scientific, technical,
administrative, auxiliary and supporting staff. Each of the
categories were governed by separate set of rules and had
independent cadres. The recruitment of the scientists was at
the entry level of ₹8,000-13,500 and made on All India basis
through a written competitive examination followed by interview
whereas in technical service there were 3 categories i.e. grades
I, II and III. The recruitment in these categories was made at
the institute level. The appellants had adopted UGC pay scales
for scientists in ARS with effect from 01.01.1986 and award
of advance increments to the scientists in ARS for having
Ph.D. qualification during service was part and parcel of the
pay package applicable to the scientists. As respondents are
part of the technical service, the pay scales as recommended
by the Government of India for the Central Government
employees were adopted. There was no additional incentive
to the respondents for Ph.D. qualification, if obtained during
service career.
2.5 Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondents filed
OA No. 2939/2002 before the Tribunal. The same was allowed
vide order dated 18.07.2003. Aggrieved against the same
the appellants preferred Writ Petitions before the High Court,
which were dismissed. The said order is under challenge in
the present appeals.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal,
while allowing the application filed by the respondents had travelled
beyond the jurisdiction vested in it. It was wrongly opined that
both categories of employees, namely the scientists and technical
personnel, are working with the appellant for the same object, hence,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through the Director
General and Anr. v. Rajinder Singh and Ors.
there should not be any distinction. If the scientist were granted
two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. qualification during
service, the respondents should not have been discriminated. The
Tribunal could not have ventured into this aspect of the matter as
the competent authority, in its wisdom, had granted the benefit of two
advance increments to the category of employees, who deserved
it. Merely because other sets of employees also obtained the same
qualification, they will not be eligible to get those benefits.
3.1 He further submitted that extension of ARS Study Leave
Regulations, 1991 to the technical personnel had nothing to do
with grant of advance increments. It was merely to encourage
them to improve their qualifications with no promise of any
financial benefit. The writ petition was dismissed by a cryptic
order. The High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal on wrong
premise by invoking Article 14, trying to equate the scientist
and technical staff, merely because they are working with the
appellants. They are governed by different sets of rules and
belong to different cadres.
3.2 The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the order of
the Tribunal as well as the High Court and rejection of the
application filed by the respondents before the Tribunal.
4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents relied upon Entry 66 in List I to the 7th Schedule attached
to the Constitution of India which deals with determination of standards
in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and
technical institutions. The submission was that the words ‘research’
and ‘technical’ have been mentioned in the same Entry. Even if the
scientists were directly engaged in research, the respondents are
working on the technical side. As the added qualification of Ph.D.,
made their assistance in research better, the relief claimed by them
was rightly allowed by the impugned order.
4.1 It was further submitted that Study Leave Regulations, 1991
which were applicable to the scientists were made applicable
to the technical personnel, in terms of which they were entitled
to get study leave for a period of 3 years for undertaking Ph.D.
program. This establishes that they were being equated with
the scientists and the study leave granted for undertaking
512 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
program was to enable them to assist the scientists in a better
way. Hence, the benefit of two advance increments, which
are admissible to the scientists, was rightly awarded to the
respondents.
4.2 He further referred to a Circular 7 dated 01.05.1995 in terms
of which the names of the technical staff who have obtained
Ph.D. qualification will also be permitted to be included in the
research projects/papers/reports, in addition to other scientists.
It was further argued that when the technical personnel acquires
a Ph.D. qualification, they become eligible for lateral entry to
the scientists cadre. Hence, the qualification has relation with
the scientist cadre.
4.3 The submission is that there is no error in the orders passed
by the High Court as well as the Tribunal. Grant of advance
increments merely encouraged the respondents and the other
technical personnel to improve their qualifications and contribute
more efficiently to the research.
5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
referred record.
6. The root cause of the litigation is the circular dated 27.02.1999
vide which the pay scales of the scientists working with the
appellants were revised after acceptance of the recommendations
by the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The relevant clause is
extracted below:
“(ii) Incentives for Ph.D./M.Phil
(a) Four and two advance increments will be
admissible to those who hold Ph.D. and M.Phil
degrees, respectively, at the time of recruitment
as Scientists.
(b) One increment will be admissible to those
scientists with M.Phil degree who acquire Ph.D.
within two years of recruitment.
7 No. 25-4/95-Per V of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.
Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through the Director
General and Anr. v. Rajinder Singh and Ors.
(c) A Scientist with Ph.D. will be eligible for two
advance increments when he moves into the
Selection Grade as Sr. Scientists.
(d) A Scientist will be eligible for two advance
increments as and when he acquires a Ph.D.
degree in his service career .”
(emphasis supplied)
7. The argument raised by the appellants is that it constituted two
services, namely Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Technical
Service (TS) on 01.10.1975. Both the services are governed by
their independent sets of rules having different cadres and different
promotional avenues.
8. Reliance was placed on Bye-laws 21 of Rules and Bye-laws of
ICAR, which classified scientific and technical categories. The same
is extracted below:
“(A) SCIENTIFIC: Scientific personnel shall be those
who are engaged in agricultural research and education
(including extension educational whether in physical,
statistical, biological, engineering, technological or
social sciences. This category shall also include persons
engaged in planning, programming and management of
scientific research.
(B) TECHNICAL: Technical Personnel shall be those,
who perform technical service in support of research and
education whether in the Laboratory, Workshop or Field,
or in areas like Library, Documentation, Publication and
Agricultural Communication.”
9. At the time of argument, it was not denied by the respondents that
they are governed by different set of rules, have their own channel
of promotion, and different qualifications prescribed for recruitment.
The duties assigned to them are also different as compared to the
scientists, who are engaged in core work of agricultural research
and education whereas the respondents being technical personnel
provide support in different areas. It is further the stand of the
appellants that the scientists belonging to Agricultural Research
514 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Service are getting UGC pay scales with effect from 01.01.1986. The
benefit of two advance increments for acquiring Ph.D. qualification
was part of their pay package. Similar benefit was not extended to
the technical personnel. For technical personnel, the appellants had
adopted the revised scales as recommended by the Government
of India for Central Government employees.
10. Merely because Study Leave Regulations, 1991 were extended to
technical personnel, this would not entitle them to other benefits
which are available to the scientists. The idea of grant of study leave
for pursuing Ph.D. to the technical personnel was only to enable
them to improve their qualifications.
10.1 Merely after having Ph.D. qualification, the technical personnel
will not become eligible for grant of two advance increments
when the same has not been recommended for them. In any
institution incentives may be given to a particular category
of employees to get higher qualifications during service,
considering their job requirements. Merely because different
set of employees, who may be working in aid but governed by
different set of rules and having different duties to discharge
also obtain that qualification, will not entitle them to the benefits
which were extended to different set of employees by the
competent authority. In the said sequel of facts, Article 14 of
the Constitution of India will not have any application.
10.2 The Tribunal and High Court have erred by equating technical
personnel and scientists and granting respondents advance
increments to which they are not entitled to. The argument
raised by the respondents that after obtaining the Ph.D.
qualification, the Technical Staff are entitled to be considered
for lateral entry into the scientists is also to be noticed and
rejected as the additional qualification merely makes them
eligible for the higher post in the different cadre and not to
grant them benefits, which are attached to the higher post in
a different cadre. Similar is the position regarding Entry 66 in
List I to the 7 th Schedule attached to the Constitution of India.
The contents of the Entries in 7 th Schedule only prescribe
limits of the powers of the Parliament or the State Legislature
to enact laws.
Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through the Director
General and Anr. v. Rajinder Singh and Ors.
11. For the reasons mentioned above, we find merit in the present
appeals. The same are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the
High Court and the Tribunal are set aside. The Original Applications
filed by the respondents before the Tribunal are dismissed. No order
as to costs.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†