http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH NEW DELHI & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M. V. SASTRY & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/09/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.      The  Council   of  Scientific   &  Industrial  Research (hereinafter referred  to as ‘OSIR’) is a society registered under the  Societies Registration  Act XXI  of 1860.  It has been  constituted  inter  alia,  for  the  purposes  of  (a) Scientific  &   Applied  Industrial   Research  of  National importance; (b)  Setting up  Research & Development Projects of National  priority with over-all planning for science and technology in  the  country  and  for  other  similar  goals including  setting   up  Research   &  Development  Projects sponsored  by   industries  in  public/private  sector.  The respondent was  initially given  a temporary  appointment as Junior Scientific  Assistant with  effect from  3.1.1959  in Central Food & Technological Research Institute (’CFTRI’ for short), an institute under the aegis of ’CSIR’.      By  its   advertisement  No.   70/59   ’CSIR’   invited applications for  various posts.  The  advertisement,  inter alia,  invited   applications  for   four  posts  of  Senior Technical Assistants.  The qualifications for this post were as follows:-      "M.Sc. Degree  in Chemistry Physics      Chemical Engineering  or in  allied      field of  technology preferably  by      research with  2-3 years experience      of Industrial  Intelligence. Survey      and Production, Pilot Plant work or      research development etc.      Experience in liaison work in trads      and industry. Workable knowledge of      some foreign languages."      The respondent applied for the post of Senior Technical Assistant. He  was selected and by order dated 1.11.1969, he was appointed  to the  post of Senior Technical Assistant in the Industrial  Liaison Office at Jaipur in the pay-scale of Rs. 250-500.  The respondent holds a Post Graduate Degree in Bio-Chemistry.      Thereafter, the respondent sought a transfer to ’CFTRI’ at Mysore  which was  granted. He  was promoted first to the post of  Scientist on  the initial  pay of  Rs. 600/- in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

pay-scale of  Rs. 400-950 with effect from 21.3.1966. He was subsequently promoted  as  Scientist-’C’  with  effect  from 20.3.1973. He  continued in this post till his retirement on superannuation on 30.9.1984.      Prior  to   his  retirement   the  respondent   made  a representation dated  20.9.1982 seeking  an addition of five years  of   qualifying  service   for  computation   of  his pensionary benefit under Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1977. He  was informed  by the  appellants by  their  letter dated 17.11.1989  that he  did  not  fulfil  the  conditions stipulated in  Rule 30.  Hence  his  request  could  not  be acceded  to.   Thereafter  the  respondent  made  a  further representation dated  29.1.1990 for  reconsideration of  his case which  was also  rejected by  the appellants  by  their letter dated 24.2.1992.      The respondent  made Application No. 319 of 1992 before the  Central   Administrative  Tribunal,   Bangalore   bench praying, inter alia for giving him the benefit of Rule 30 of the  CCS   (Pension)  Rules,  1972  and  to  re-compute  his retirement benefits  accordingly. He also sought a direction for payment  of differential  amount together with interest. This application  has been  granted by the Tribunal. It has, however not  granted any  interest to  the  respondent.  The present appeal  is filed from this judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 15.9.1993.      The relevant  provisions of  Rule 30  of CCS  (Pension) Rules are as follows:-      Rule  30:  Addition  to  qualifying      service in special circumstances:           (1) A  Government servant  who      retires  from  a  service  or  post      after  the   add  to   his  service      qualifying    for    superannuation      pension  (but  not  for  any  other      class of pension) the actual length      of his service or the actual period      by which  his age  at the  time  of      recruitment  exceeded   twenty-five      years or  a period  of five  years,      whichever is  less, if  the service      or post  to  which  the  Government      servant is appointed is one-           (a)  for  which  post-graduate                research,  or  specialist                qualification          or                experience in  scientific                technological          or                professional  fields,  is                essential; and           (b)  to  which  candidates  of                more   than   twenty-five                years of age are normally                recruited:      Provided that this concession shall      not be  admissible to  a Government      service    unless     his    actual      qualifying service  at the  time he      quits  Government  service  is  not      less than ten years:      Provided    further    that    this      concession shall be admissible only      if the recruitment rules in respect      of the said service or post contain      a  specific   provision  that   the      service  or   post  is   one  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    carries the benefit of this rule.      ...................................      ...........      (2) ...............................      (3) ............................. "      It was  contended by the appellants before the Tribunal that the  provisions of  Rule  30  would  not  be  attracted because there  was no  express  specific  provision  in  the requirement rules  relating to  the said  post to the effect that the post is one which carries the benefit of this rule. This contention,  however, has been rightly negatived by the tribunal. Till  1980 ’CSIR’ had not adopted this concession. In  1980   ’CSIR’  extended   this  provision  only  to  the Scientists and  Technologists appointed  in the pay-scale of Rs.  1500-2000   and  above.   However,  vide   notification 19.5.1982 the  benefit of  this rule  was  extended  to  all scientific and technical staff. Thereafter by a notification dated 28.10.1987 this benefit was extended even to those who had retired  from service  after 31.3.1960.  Therefore,  the respondent is  entitled to  the benefit  of Rule 30 of he is otherwise eligible for the same.      The first requirement under Rule 30 is that the post to which the  government servant  is appointed is one for which post-graduate  research   is  essential  or  any  specialist qualification or  experience in scientific, technological or professional fields,  is essential.  For the  post of Senior Technical Assistant,  the qualification  is an M. Sc. Degree in Chemistry,  Physics, chemical  Engineering or  any allied field of  technology. This  cannot be  considered as a post- graduate   research    qualification.    Undoubtedly,    the advertisement  says  that  M.Sc.  Degree  in  any  of  these subjects should  be preferably  by reproach  but it  is  not essential that  the candidate  should have  a  post-graduate research qualification.  The respondent has an M. Sc. Degree in Bio-Chemistry.  This cannot  be looked  upon as  a  post- graduate research  or specialist qualification. This becomes clear if  one looks  at the  qualification for  some of  the other posts  which were  advertised by  ’CSIR’. For example, the appellants  have drawn our attention to an advertisement in ’The  Hindu’ of  December 12, 1954 for the post of Junior Scientific  officer,   Bio-Chemistry  Division   where   the qualifications prescribed  by ’CSIR’  are: M.Sc. or Ph.D. in Biochemistry or Microbiology with at least two years in work on Bacterial  Chemistry. Experience  of work  in antibiotics will  be   an  additional   qualification.  Here  specialist qualifications and experience are clearly prescribed, unlike the general  qualifications and experience prescribed in the present  case.   In  the   advertisement  there  is  also  a preference indicated for a candidate possessing two or three years experience  in industrial  intelligence or  survey and production or pilot plant work or research development etc.. as also  experience in liaison work with trade and industry. This  is   not  "specialist"   experience   in   scientific, technological or  professional fields.  This  is  a  general outline of  the various  kinds of experiences, at least some of which  the candidate should have, over a period of two or three years.  Clause  (a)  of  Rule  30,  therefore  is  not satisfied in the case of the respondent.      The second part of the rule is that it should be a post to which  candidates of  more than  twenty-five years of age are normally recruited. The appellants have pointed out that the intention  underlying Rule  30 (1)  is to  compensate  a government servant for the time taken by him in securing the specialist qualifications  or experience which are essential for appointment  to the  post to  which he is appointed. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

qualifications and  experience which  are prescribed  in the present case  do not indicate that they would normally takes so  much   time  that   any  candidate  who  possesses  such qualifications and  experience would  be normally  more than twenty-five years  in age.  A Master’s  Degree in one of the general fields of Chemistry, Physics Chemical Engineering or any  allied   field  with  two  years  experience  need  not necessarily push  a candidate  beyond the age of twenty-five years. Secondly,  experience of  the type  required does not appear to  be a  mandatory requirement. Only a preference is indicated for  candidates who possess the kind of experience which is  prescribed. Therefore, both the conditions of Rule 30 are not satisfied by the respondent.      The respondent  has contended  before the Tribunal that there were  other officers  in ’CSIR’  who  were  given  the benefit of  Rule 30.  The appellants  have pointed  out that none of  the officers  so mentioned  by the  respondent were appointed to the post to which the respondent was appointed. They were  required to much higher post for which specialist qualifications/research experience were assential.      The appeal  is, therefore,  allowed  and  the  impugned order of  the Tribunal is set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs.