Indian Council of Agricultural Research through the Director General & Anr. vs Rajinder Singh & Ors.

2024 INSC 622 REPORTABLE

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)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated

21.07.2010 passed by the High Court 1 in Writ Petition2 filed

against the order dated 18.07.2003 3 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.

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

application6 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

for the respondents relied upon Entry 66 in List I to the 7 th

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.

4.2 He further referred to a Circular7 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

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.

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