Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12
PETITIONER:
DR. S.M. ILYAS AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/11/1992
BENCH:
[M.H. KANIA CJ., N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]
ACT:
Civil Services:
ICAR-Scientists-S2 and S3 grades-Fixation of pay scales.
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 14- I.C.A.R.-Scientist-Pay scales-Revision-Disparity
in revised pay scale-Prescribing lower pay scale to senior
scientists than their junior counterpart-Held not
justified.
HEADNOTE:
The Imperial Council of Agricultural Research, a
Society established under the Societies Registration Act in
the year 1929 was redesignated as the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research after the advent of Independence. Till
1965, the ICAR was largely functioning as a coordinating
agency and apex body for financing research projects, but
with effect from 1966 the administrative control over the
Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI) and other such
Institutes were transferred to ICAR, simultaneously placing
the staff of such Institutes at the disposal of the ICAR A
department of Agricultural Research and Education was set up
in the Ministry of Agriculture and the said department came
into existence on 15.12.1973. The ICAR was fully financed
by the Department of Agricultural Research and Education of
the Government of India.
ICAR started an Agricultural Research Service with
effect from 1.10.1975, and the relevant grades and pay
scales as on 31.12.1985 were:
Grade of Scientist S in pay scale Rs. 550-900,
Scientist S-I in Rs. 700-1300, Scientist S-2 in
Rs. 1100-1600, and Scientist S-3 in Rs. 1500-2000.
The Scientists of the ICAR who were earlier covered by
the Third Pay Commission pay-scales had been demanding
parity in pay-scales with the employees of the Agricultural
Universities who were also financed by the ICAR After
persistent demand, the ICAR agreed to revise the pay scales
with effect from 1.1.1986 by notification dated 9th March,
1989. This notification benefited some of the Scientists,
but was denying the principles of ’Equal Pay for Equal Work’
in the case of the appellants and the like, and the said
notification had further placed persons much junior to many
of the appellants in a higher scale of pay, resulting in
violation of the fundamental rights of the appellants
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Some of the appellants in this appeal had earlier filed a
Writ Petition before this Court under Article 32 challenging
the aforesaid notification and for other connected reliefs,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12
which was disposed of on 3rd May, 1990, directing the
appellants to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal,
and a further declaration was made that the Tribunal shall
treat the petition as a Representative Petition.
Certain clarifications were issued by the ICAR by its
letter dated 31st March, 1989 and by orders dated 14th
June, 1989, 6.11.1989 and 6.7.1989. These orders not only
revised the pay scales but also gave new designations to the
various posts held by the appellants.
----------------------------------------------------------
S.No. Existing Grade Existing New Revised
Pay-scale designation pay-scale
----------------------------------------------------------
1. Scientist,S-2 Rs.1100-50-1600 Scientist Rs. 3000-100
with service (Senior 3500-125-5000
upto eight scale)
years.
2. Scientist,S-2 Rs.1100-50- Scientist Rs. 3700-125
with service 1600 (Selection 4950-150-5700
exceeding grade)
eight years
3. Scientist,S-3 Rs.1500-60- Scientist Rs. 3700-125
with service 1800-100-2000 (Selection 4950-150.5700.
upto 16 years Grade)
4. Scientist,S-3 Rs.1500-50- Principal Rs. 4500-l50
with service 1800-100-2000 Scientist 5700-200-7300
exceeding 16
years
The appellants filed an application under Section 19 of
the Administrative Tribunal’s Act before the Principal Bench
of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi and contended
that according to the notification dated 9.3.1989 together
with the subsequent clarifications, juniors and less
meritorious Scientists and who were drawing lesser basic
pay as on 31.12.1985 than the appellants had been placed in
higher pay scales causing great resentment amongst a large
number of Scientists including the appellants.
Not being successful before the Tribunal, the
appellants appealed to this Court and contended that
Scientists S-3 in pre-revised scale of Rs. 1500-2000 having
completed total service in the ARS as on 31.12.1985
exceeding 16 years had been placed in the scale of Rs. 4500-
7300, whereas Scientists S-3 who were in the same pre-
revised scale of Rs. 1500-2000 but had put in total service
in the ARS as on 31.12.1985 upto 16 years have been placed
in the scale of Rs. 3700-5700.
Similarly, Scientists S-2 who were in the pre-revised
scale of Rs. 1100-1600 and had completed total service of
more than 8 years in the ARS as on 31.12.1985 had been put
in the scale of Rs. 3700-5700, but those having completed
total service upto 8 years as on 31.12.1985 had been put in
the scale of Rs. 3000-5000.
It was further submitted by the appellant that in the
ICAR there were two streams for career advancement of the
Scientists. The slower stream is the five yearly assessment,
and the faster one is the direct selection through
advertisement to various posts at All India level, and that
in the direct selection, the existing Scientists can also
compete with the other Scientists from non-lCAR
Institutions, that the criterion of eight years of
qualifying service for getting the scale of Rs. 3700-5700,
and 16 years of qualifying service for getting the scale of
Rs. 4500-7300 completed ignores the period of service put in
the grades of S-2 or S-3 respectively, and that this clearly
shows the utter disregard for merit and competence of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12
Scientists working on these posts of S-2 or S-3.
It was also submitted that the impugned notification
was not only unreasonable and discriminatory, but had
resulted in grave injustice to the Scientists directly
selected as Scientists S-2 and S-3 by taking into
consideration the total length of service in the ARS as the
only criterion thereby giving a complete go-bye to merit
and competence.
The respondents opposed the appeal by contending that on
persistent demand of the appellants and other scientists for
giving them better pay-scales than those recommended by the
Fourth Pay Commission, the Government introduced University
Grant Commission pay package for them. The designations of
Scientists on various grounds had been suitably amended so
as to conform to their respective level of responsibility.
Scientist S-2 having less than 8 years of service as on
31.12.1985 were placed in the revised scale of Rs. 3000-
5000, whereas those having more than 8 years of prescribed
service as on 31.12.1985 were placed in the scale of Rs.
3700-5700. It was further contended that efforts were being
made to devise means by which the affected Scientists may be
able to take their chance for appointment to higher
management positions.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD :1. While introducing a new scheme of pay-scales
and fixing new grades of posts, some of the incumbents may
have to be put to less advantageous position than others,
but at the same time the granting Of new pay-scales cannot
be allowed to act arbitrarily and cannot create a situation
in which the juniors may become senior or vice-versa. [450-
B]
2. The appellants are justified in their submission
that they were also entitled to the higher pay-scale on the
post of Scientists S-2 as well as S-3 specially when they
were recruited on those posts much earlier to those who have
now become entitled to higher pay-scales under the impugned
notification. They are also right in their submission that
it also mars their future chances of promotion on the higher
posts. [452-A-B]
3. The appellants are Scientists who are rendering
great service to the nation and no justification is found
as to why the appellants or any other Scientists in ICAR
placed in similar position like the appellants should be
deprived the benefit of the revised pay-scales on the higher
post of S-2 or S-3, in case they were appointed by direct
recruitment or by selection on merit-cum-seniority on the
post of Scientists S-2 or S-3 prior to those who have now
become entitled to higher pay-scale under the impugned
notification dated 93.1989. [453-B-C]
4. The Tribunal itself had found force and
justification in grievances made by the appellants and had
granted six months time to the respondents to take
appropriate action. Opportunities were granted to the
respondents to come with a scheme granting appropriate
relief to the appellants, but they were unable to come out
with any concrete proposal
or scheme redressing the grievances of the appellants. [452-
H; 453-Al
5. The respondents to issue appropriate orders so that
any of the appellants or the like working as Scientist S-2
or S-3 on or before 31.12.1985 earlier to anyone of the
Scientists getting benefit of the revised pay-scales under
the impugned notification dated 9.3.1989 also get a similar
benefit of revised pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7300 in the case of
S-3 and pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5700 in the case of S-2. Such
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12
revised pay-scales shall a be given from 1.1.1986 as given
to S-2 and S-3 Scientists under the impugned notification.
Suitable action in this regard to be taken and the entire
amount to be paid within six months. [453-D-E]
P.K Iyer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 2 SCR
200, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2736 of
1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.1990 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1510
of 1990.
M.K. Ramamurthy, Raj Kumar Mehta and Ms. Mona
Chakraborty for the Appellants.
R.K. Jain, Arun Jaitley, Mahesh Srivastava, Vishnu
Mathur, A.K. Sikri and Ms. Madhu Sikri for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KASLIWAL, J. The appellants who are Scientists working
in various Institutes under Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (in short ’ICAR’) throughout the country have filed
this appeal against the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, New Delhi dated 5.10.1990. Some of the appellants
had filed a Writ Petition No. 550 of 1990 before this Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the
notification issued by the ICAR dated 9.3.1989 and for other
connected reliefs. This Court disposed of the said Writ
Petition by order dated 3.5.1990 in the following manner:
"The main relief which the
petitioners ask for in this writ
petition is about revision of pay-
scale and other connected service
benefits. When we suggested to
learned counsel that the matter
should go before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, he has
indicated certain difficulties
which are like the officers being
spread-over in different parts of
the country and the difficulty in
coordinating the cases for
disposal, in case they are required
to go before the Tribunal and the
fact that there may be inordinate
delay in disposal and in obtaining
the relief. We are of the view that
the matter can be appropriately
considered by the Tribunal for
overcoming the difficulties
indicated by Mr. Sanghi, we direct
the Central Administrative Tribunal
to treat the petition that is going
to be filed at the Principal Bench
at Delhi as the representative
petition and dispose of the same
within six months from the date it
is filed. This petition is allowed
to be withdrawn."
In pursuance to the above order dated 3.5.1990 some of
the appellants filed an application No. 1510 of 1990 under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi. The
Tribunal treated the aforesaid application as having been
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12
filed in representative capacity of S-2 and S-3 Officers of
the ICAR, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in
its order dated 3.5.1990.
In order to appreciate the controversy, we shall state
the facts in brief. The Imperial Council of Agricultural
Research, a Society established under the Societies
Registration Act in the year 1929 was redesignated as the
Indian Council of Agricultural Research after the advent of
independence. Till 1965, the ICAR was largely functioning as
a coordinating agency and apex body for financing research
project. With effect from 1966, administrative control over
the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) and other
such Institutes was transferred to ICAR simultaneously
placing the staff of such Institutes at the disposal of the
ICAR. A department of Agricultural Research and Education
was set up in the Ministry of Agriculture and the said
department came into existence on 15.12.1973. The ICAR is
fully financed by the Department of Agricultural Research
and Education (DARE), Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperation, Government of India. ICAR follows the rules of
Government of India Mutatis Mutandis. The ICAR has been held
to be ‘State’ within the meaning Article 12 of the
Constitution as per the judgement of this Court in the case
of P.K. Iyer & Others v. Union of Indian & Others, reported
in [1984] 2 SCR 200.
The ICAR started an Agricultural Research Service (in
short ’ARS’) with effect from 1.10.1975 and the relevant
grades and pay-scales as on - 31.12.1985 are given as under
:
"Grades Pay-scales
Scientist S Rs. 550-990
Scientist S-1 Rs. 700-1300
Scientist S-2 Rs. 1100-1600
Scientist S-3 Rs. 1500-2000"
The Scientists of the ICAR who were earlier covered by
the Third Pay Commission pay-scales had been demanding
parity in pay-scales with the employees of the Agricultural
Universities who were also financed by the ICAR. After
persistent demand, the ICAR agreed to revise the pay scales
with effect from 1.1.1986 vide notification No.1-14/87-Per.
IV dated 9th March, 1989. According to the appellants, the
aforesaid notification though benefited some of the
Scientists, but was denying the principle of ’Equal Pay for
Equal Work’ in the case of the appellants and the like and
the said notification had further placed persons much junior
to many of the appellants in a higher scale of pay resulting
in violation of the fun damental rights of the appellants
guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In
order to appreciate the grievances of the appellants the
pay-scales as revised by the ICAR vide the impugned
notification dated 9.3.1989 are given as under :
"S.No. Grade Existing New Revised pay
pay-scale designation scale
1. Scientist S-2 Rs.1100-50 Scientist Rs. 3000-100-
(with total ser- 1600 (Senior 3500-125-5000
vice in the scale)
ARS as on
31.12.1985
upto 8 years)
2. Scientist S-2 Rs. 1100-50 Scientist Rs. 3700-125-
(with total 1600 (Selection 4950- 150-5700
service in the Grade)
ARS as on
31.12.85
exceeding 8
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12
years)
3. Scientist S-3 Rs. 1500-60- Scientist Rs. 3700-125-
(with total ser- 1800-100-2000 (Selection 4950-150-5700
vice in the Grade)
ARS as on
31.12.85 upto
16 years)
4. Scientist S-3 Rs. 1500-50- Principal Rs. 4500-150-
(with total 1800-100-2000 Scientist 5700-200-7300
service in the
ARS or
equivalent
grades as on
31.12.85
exceeding 16
years)
Certain clarifications were issued to the above
notification vide letter No. 1-14/87-Per. IV (Vol. III)
dated 31.3.1989, order No. 1-7/89-Per. IV (Vol. III) dated
14.6.1989, order No. 1-7/89-per. IV dated 6.11.1989 (Vol.
III) and order No. 1-7/89-Per. IV dated 6.7.1990.
The case of the appellants is that according to the
impugned notification dated 9.3.1989 together with
subsequent clarifications, Scientists S-3 in pre-revised
scale of Rs. 1500-2000 having completed total service in the
ARS as on 31.12.1985 exceeding 16 years had been placed in
the scale of Rs. 4500-7300, whereas Scientists S-3 who were
in the same pre-revised scale of Rs. 1500-2000 but had put
in total service in the ARS as on 31.12.1985 upto 16 years
have been placed in the scale of Rs. 3700-5700.
Similarly, Scientists S-2 who were in the pre-revised
scale of Rs.1100-1600 and had completed total service of
more than 8 years than in the ARS as on 31.12.1985 have
been put in the scale of Rs. 3700-5700, but those having
completed total service upto 8 years as on 31.12.1985 had
been put in the scale of Rs. 3000-5000. According to the
appellants, by the impugned notification dated 9.3.1989, in
the guise of revision of pay-scales, altogether new
grades/designations have also been created as under :-
"S Grade Existing designation New designation
No.
1. Scientist S-2 (with Scientist S-2 Scientist (Senior
total service in Scale)
ARS as on
31.12.1985 upto 8
years)
2. Scientist S-2 (with Scientist S-2 Scientist (Selection
total service in Grade)
ARS as on
31.12.1985
exceeding 8 years)
3. Scientist S-3 (with Scientist S-3 Scientist (Selection
total service in Grade)
ARS as on
31.12.1985
upto 16 years)
4. Scientist S-3 (with Scientist S-3 Principal Scientist"
total service in
ARS or equivalent
Grades as on
31.12.1985
exceeding 16 years)
It has been further submitted by the appellants that in
the ICAR there were two streams for career advancement of
the Scientists. The slower stream is the five yearly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12
assessment and the faster one is the direct selection
through advertisement to various posts at All India level.
In the
direct selection, the existing Scientists can also compete
with the other. Scientists from non-lCAR Institutions. The
requirements for assessment and direct selection are
different as illustrated below by the appellants :-
"Suppose a Scientist with Ph. D
qualification joins as S-1, it will
take for him at least 11 years to
become S-3 through assessment,
whereas if he had only 7 years’
experience and good merit, he could
be directly selected as S-3. So, it
takes 4 years less for a Scientist
to become directly recruited S-3 as
compared to his counterparts who
got S-3 through assessment scheme.
This fact has been completely
ignored by the ICAR while revising
the pay-scale in which the
requirement of total length of
service was kept same for
Scientists of both the streams.
This is the reason why many of the
Scientists who were selected
directly as S-2/S-3, taking lesser
time to attain higher grades, have
been denied their due in the
impugned revision of pay scales."
It has been further submitted on behalf of the
appellants that the criterion of eight years of qualifying
service for getting the scale of Rs.3700-5700 and 16 years
of qualifying service for getting the scale of Rs. 4500-7300
completely ignores the period of service put in the grade of
S-2 or S-3 respectively. This clearly shows the utter
disregard for merit and competence of the Scientists working
on these posts of S-2 or S-3. The impugned notification is
not only unreasonable and discriminatory, but has resulted
in grave injustice to the Scientists directly selected as
Scientists S-2 and S-3 by taking into consideration the
total length of service in the ARS as the only criterion
thereby giving a complete go-bye to merit and competence. It
has been further submitted that before the issuance of the
impugned notification Scientists S-2 who had put in upto 8
years service and those who had put in exceeding 8 years
service had the same designation namely, Scientist S-2 and
were performing the same nature of work and duties. After
the impugned notification, they have been reclassified in
two categories, namely Scientist (Senior-Scale) and
Scientist (Selection Grade), and have been put in different
pay-scales, though their nature of work and duties still
continue to remain the same.
It has been similarly pointed out that prior to the
issuance of the impugned notification Scientists S-3 who had
put in upto 16 years of service and those having put in more
than 16 years had the same designation of Scientist S-3 and
their nature of work and duties were also the same. Now,
by virtue of the impugned notification Scientists S-3 have
been reclassified into two categories, namely, Scientist
(Selection Grade) and Principal Scientist and have been
given different scales of pay, though their nature of work
and duties still continue to remain the same. It has thus
been submitted that as a result of the impugned notification
juniors and less meritorious Scientists and who were also
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12
drawing lesser basic pay as on 31.12.1985 than the
appellants have been placed in higher pay-scales causing
great resentment amongst a large number of Scientists
including the appellants.
The appellants have further illustrated the injustice
and arbirtrainess in the application of the impugned
notification in the following manner :-
"ILLUSTRATION- I
------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF Scale Scale
APPOINTMENT
Class II Scien Scien Scien- as as on
(Gaze- -tist -tist tist on 1.1.1986
tted) S-1 S-2 S-3 31.12.85 as per
the
impugned
Notification
------------------------------------------------------------
Scientist-A 30.4.65 9.10. 1.7.76 1.1.85 Rs. Rs.
Dr. G.C. 74 1500- 4500-
Sharma 2000 7300
Scientist-B 1.7.76 24.3.79 6.12.79 Rs. Rs.
Dr. Sheo 1500- 3700-
Raj 2000 5700
------------------------------------------------------------
It would thus be seen that although Scientist-B got the S-3
grade much before Scientist-A and both were in the same
scale as on 31.12.1985, by the impugned notification
Scientist-A has been given the higher scale of Rs
4500-7300 with effect from 1.1.1986 whereas Scientist-B has
been put in the lower scale of Rs. 3700-5700.
ILLUSTRATION-II
------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF APPOINTMENT Scale Scale
Scientist S-1 1 Scientist 1 S-2 as on as per
31.12.85 impugned
Notification
------------------------------------------------------------
Scientist -A 1.9.76 1.7.1985 Rs. Rs.
Ms. Pratibha 1100- 3700-
Shukla 1600 5700
Scientist-B - 22.7.78 Rs. Rs.
Shri B.S. (joined 1100- 3000-
Modi directly as S-2) 1600 5000
----------------------------------------------------------
The above illustration would show that while Scientist-B got
the S-2 grade much earlier than Scientist-A and both were in
the same scale as on 31.12.1985, by the impugned
notification Scientist-A has been placed in the higher scale
of Rs. 3700-5700 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and Scientist-B has been
given lower scale of Rs 3000- 5000."
On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of
the respondents. that on persistent demand of the appellants
and other Scientists for giving them better pay-scales than
those recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission, the
Government introduced University Grants Commission
(in short ’UGC’) pay package for them. The designations of
Scientists on various grounds have been suitably amended so
as to conform to their respective level of responsibility.
In the UGC revised scales, there is no single/uniform
revised scale for servicing S-2 and S- 3 Scientists. However
there is provision for specific placement of Scientists S-2
and S-3 in the UGC scales by virtue of their length of
service as on 31.12.1985. Thus, as per the scheme concurred
in by the Ministry of Finance, Scientist S-2 having less
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12
than 8 years of service as on 31.12.1985 have been placed in
the revised scale of Rs. 3000-5000, whereas those having
more than 8 years Of prescribed service as on 31.12.1985
have been placed in the scale of Rs. 3700-5700. Similarly,
in case of S-3 Scientists, the period of service as on
31.12.1985 has been taken as 16 years and as such those
having more than 16 years of service as on 31.12.1985 have
been put in the scale of Rs. 4500- 7300 and those upto 16
years have been placed in the scale of Rs. 3700-5700. Thus,
prescribing the aforesaid pay-scales on the pattern of UGC
as per the demand of the Scientists themselves, the above
fixation of pay scales is perfectly valid and proper. It has
been further submitted that injustice done to some of the
incumbents in introducing a new scheme cannot be a reason
for setting aside the whole scheme. It has been further
submitted that they have formulated model recruitment rules
on the pattern of UGC. Some difficulties have been
experienced while prescribing the experience of 3, 5, 6
years as Principal Scientists for recruitment to the higher
posts. Efforts are being made to devise means by which the
affected Scientists may be able to take their chance for
appointment to higher management positions.
We have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the
record. It is no doubt correct that while introducing a new
scheme of pay-scales and fixing new grades of posts, some of
the incumbents may have to put to less advantageous position
than others, but at the same time the granting of new pay-
scales cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily and cannot
create a situation in which the juniors may become senior of
vice-versa. Admittedly, the Scientists working in the ICAR
had made a grievance for the revision of their pay-scales
and the Government being satisfied with their grievances had
appointed various expert Committees such as, M.V. Rao
Committee, N.G.P. Rao Committee, Menon Committee and G.V.R.
Rao Committee for improvement of service conditions of the
Scientists working in the ICAR. Government had notified a
set of pay-scales for the Universities in 1988 known as ’UGC
Scales. M.V. Rao Committee which was set up by the
Government to go into the pay-scales of ARS Scientists had
recommended the application of the UGC Scales to the ARS
Scientists. So far as the recommendations of the
aforementioned expert Committees are concerned, learned
counsel for the appellants pointed out that none of the
recommendations made by such Committees laid down any
criteria of 8 years or 16 years of service for giving higher
pay-scales in the case of incumbents holding the same S-2 or
S-3 grade in the ICAR. The respondents in their counter
affidavit have admitted that S-1, S-2 and S-3 are equivalent
to that of Lecturer, Reader and Professor respectively. Dr.
M.V.Rao Committee after considering the facts that the ICAR
has the role of UGC in agricultural education recommended
that the ICAR being an apex organisation in the country for
agricultural education, research and extension should have
the pay-scales at least at par with the State Agricultural
Universities. Dr. M.V. Rao Committee’s recommendations were
accepted by the Central Government and a policy decision was
taken on 13.10.1988 to the effect that UGC package may be
extended to ICAR Scientists engaged in teaching, research
and extension. It may be further noted that prior to the
impugned notification dated 9.3.1989, there were four grades
of Scientists namely, Scientist-S, S-1, S-2 and S-3 apart
from other higher grades with which we are not presently
concerned. So far as the lowest grade of Scientist is
concerned which has been named as Experimental Scientist in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12
the impugned notification is a dying cadre. Now, so far as 8
Scientist S-1 is concerned, he has been given the revised
pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000 and there is no controversy about
it. The controversy is about Scientists S-2 and S-3. All
Scientists S-2 were in the same pay-scale of Rs. 1100-1600
prior to the introduction of the revised pay-scales by the
impugned notification dated 9.3.1989. By the impugned
notification, post of Scientist S-2 has been bifurcated in
two grades as Scientist (Senior Scale) in the pay-scale of
Rs. 3000-5000 and Scientist (Selection Grade) in the pay-
scale of Rs. 3700-5700. Similarly, in the case of Scientist
S-3 which had a common pay-scale of Rs. 1500-2000 has now
been bifurcated as Scientist (Selection Grade) in the pay-
scale of Rs. 3700-5700 and Principal Scientist in the pay-
scale of Rs. 4500-7300. The basis for giving higher pay-
scales has been taken as period of total service in ARS as 8
years in the case of Scientist S-2 and 16 years in the case
of Scientist S-3. It would have been correct in case the
recruitment to such posts of S-2 and S-3 had been made
purely on the basis of seniority and length of service in
ARS. But the admitted position is that such posts of
Scientists S-2 and S-3 were also filled by direct
recruitment from public as well as by merit-cum-seniority
from amongst the members of the Agricultural Research
Service. Thus, the anomalous situation created is amply
illustrated by the examples of Dr. G.C. Sharma and Dr. Sheo
Raj in the case of S-3 and the case of Ms. Pratibha Shukla
and Shri B.S. Modi in the case of Scientist S-2. Dr. Sheo
Raj came to be appointed as a Scientist S-3 on 6.12.1979
while Dr. G.C. Sharma came to be appointed as Scientist S-3
as late as on 1.1.1985. Admittedly, on 31.12.1985 both were
in the scale of Rs. 1500-2000. Now, on the basis of the
impugned notification Dr. G.C. Sharma gets the pay-scale of
Rs. 4500-7300 as Principal Scientist while Dr. Sheo Raj is
fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5700 as Scientist
(Selection Grade). Similar is the case of Shri B.S. Modi and
Ms. Pratibha Shukla in S-2.
Shri Arun Jaitley Leaned senior counsel appearing for
the ICAR which tried hard but in vain to justify such
disparity which is totally arbitrary and unreasonable. It
does not stand to reason that Dr. Sheo Raj having been
appointed as Scientist S-3 on merit as back as on 6.12.1979
is fixed in the new pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5700 while Dr.
G.C. Sharma who became Scientist S-3 as late as on 1.1.1985
is fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7300. Similarly, in
the case of the incumbents on the post of Scientist S-2
Shri N.S. Modi having appointed by direct recruitment on
22.7.1975 has been fixed in the new pay-scale of Rs. 3000-
5000 as Scientist (Senior Scale) while Ms. Pratibha Shukla
who came to be appointed as Scieutist S-2 on 1.7.1985 has
been fixed in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 2700-5700 as
Scientist (Selection Grade). In our view, the appellants are
justified in their submission that they were also entitled
to the higher pay-scale on the post of Scientist S-2 as well
as S-3 specially when they were recruited on these posts
much earlier to those who have now become entitled to higher
pay-scales under the impugned notification. They are also
right in their submission that it also mars their future
chances of promotion on the higher posts.
The following observations made by the Tribunal itself
shows the justification of the demand made by the appellants
:-
"The respondents have admitted in
their counter affidavit that
certain anomalies have been created
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12
by the new scheme and that they are
trying to rectify the same. They
have issued orders allowing
directly recruited S-2 and S-3
Scientists certain wetihtage for a
period of service rendered by them
for placement in the higher scale
as on 1.1.1986. They have also
stated that they are devising means
by which the affected Scientists
may be able to take their chance
for appointment to higher
management positions
........................... In the
instant case, by applying the
principle of length of service in
the ARS irrespective of the grades
in which the officers were hitherto
working a large number of erstwhile
seniors will be rendered juniors
and they will now be entitled to
only lower pay scales than their
erstwhile juniors. This would also
adversely affect their eligibility
for promotion from 1.1.1986. In
case they were eligible to be
considered for promotion to the
next higher grade under the old
dispensation, it will be unjust and
inequitable to render them
ineligible for such promotion
against the existing vacancies
proposed to be filled up. It is,
however, for the respondents to
devise suitable steps, including
grant of one time relaxation and/or
appropriate weightage to the
applicants and those similarly
situated, so as to make them
eligible to appear before the
Selection Board for the various
posts already advertised."
It may be noted that the Tribunal itself had found
force and justification in the grievances made by the
appellants and had granted 6 month’s time to the respondents
to take appropriate action.
We had also granted opportunities to the respondents to
come with a scheme granting appropriate relief to the
appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case, but
till the matter was finally heard by us, the respondents
were unable to come out with any concrete proposal or scheme
redressing the grievances of the appellants. The appellants
are Scientists who are rendering great service to the nation
and we find no justification as to why the appellants or any
other Scientists in ICAR placed in similar position like the
appellants should be deprived the benefit of the revised
pay-scales on the higher post of S-2 or S-3, in case they
were appointed by direct recruitment or by selection on
merit-cum-seniority on the post of Scientist S-2 or S-3
prior to those who have now become entitled to higher pay-
scale under the impugned notification dated 9.3.1989.
We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct the
respondents to issue appropriate orders so that any of the
appellants or the like working as Scientist S-2 or S-3 on or
before 31.12.1985 earlier to anyone of the Scientists
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12
getting benefit of the revised pay-scales under the impugned
notification dated 9.3.1989 also get a similar benefit of
revised pay-scale of Rs.4500-7300 in the case of S-3 and
pay-scale of Rs.3700-5700 in the case of S-2. Such revised
pay-scales shall be given from 1.1.]986 as given to S-2 and
S-3 Scientists under the impugned notification. The
respondents are directed to take suitable action in this
regard and to pay the entire amount within six months from
the date of this order. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, we pass no order as to costs.
N.V.K. Appeal allowed.