Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 622
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 97-98 OF 2012
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH THROUGH THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL AND ANR. … Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS. … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated
1 2
21.07.2010 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition filed
3 4
against the order dated 18.07.2003 passed by the Tribunal .
The Tribunal had allowed the application filed by the
5
respondents, extending them the benefit of the scheme 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.
1 High Court of Delhi
2 W.P.(C) Nos. 3364-65/2004
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
Page 1 of 12
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
Page 2 of 12
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
6
application 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
6 Original Application No. 1536/2002
Page 3 of 12
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.
Page 4 of 12
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, 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
Page 5 of 12
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
th
for the respondents relied upon Entry 66 in List I to the 7
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
Page 6 of 12
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 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.
7
4.2 He further referred to a Circular 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.
7 No. 25-4/95-Per V of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.
Page 7 of 12
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.
(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
Page 8 of 12
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
Page 9 of 12
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
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
Page 10 of 12
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
th
regarding Entry 66 in List I to the 7 Schedule attached to the
th
Constitution of India. The contents of the Entries in 7
Schedule only prescribe limits of the powers of the Parliament
or the State Legislature to enact laws.
Page 11 of 12
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.
……………….……………..J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
New Delhi
August 22, 2024.
Page 12 of 12