http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: C.S.I.R.  & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR.  AJAY KUMAR JAIN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       31/03/2000

BENCH: D.P.Wadhwa, Ruma Pal

JUDGMENT:

     D.P.  WADHWA, J.

     The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated May 24,  1994  of the Central Administrative  Tribunal  (Lucknow Bench)  (’CAT’ for short).  The respondent, a Scientist, had filed  Original  Application (OA No.  788 of  1993)  seeking various reliefs.  His petition was allowed by the CAT giving the following directions:  -

     "Accordingly,  we  hereby quash the Office  Memorandum dated  8.9.93  (Annexure  11 to the petition).   As  regards Office  Memorandum dated 5.6.92 we hold that the respondents are not bound to accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee  as regards fixing the consolidated salary of  the petitioner  as  Rs.3400/- and we deem it just and proper  to direct  and  do hereby direct that the  consolidated  salary payable  to  the  petitioner  shall  be  nothing  less  than Rs.3737/-  which  the  petitioner  was  getting  as  a  Pool Officer.  The respondents are further directed to pay to the petitioner  accordingly the entire arrears of salary for the period  commencing  from  1.8.91 till his  re-engagement  as Fellow  Scientist  and  to continue to pay the  revised  pay scale  as shown in the table of the scale issued by the CSIR vide  its  Office Memorandum dated 3.8.92 (Annexure R-11  to the  rejoinder).   The respondents are also directed to  put the  petitioner  on  duty  as scientist  Fellow  as  if  the petitioner was not turned out on the basis of time limit and to  regularise  the services of the petitioner  taking  into account his full length of service rendered for CSIR as well as for CDRI with continuity of service and the seniority."

     There  are  three appellants.  First appellant is  the Council  of  Scientific  and Industrial Research  (CSIR),  a Society  registered  under  the Societies  Registration  Act controlled  by the Central Government.  Second appellant  is the  Director  of Central Drug Research  Institute,  Lucknow (CDRI),  a body under the control of CSIR.  Third  appellant is  the Senior Controller of Administration in the CDRI.  At the outset it was pointed by Mr.  Soli J.  Sorabjee, learned Attorney General that in Sabhajit Tewary vs.  Union of India and  others [(1975) 1 SCC 485] a Constitution Bench of  this Court  held that CSIR is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.  However, whether CSIR is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

authority or not is not relevant for the purpose of decision of this appeal.

     When  the  appellant  sought leave to appeal  to  this Court  under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution  from  the judgment  of  the  CAT  this  Court  issued  notice  to  the respondent limiting the notice as under :  -

     "The  only  grievance made by learned counsel for  the petitioners  is against the direction given by the  Tribunal to  absorb  and  regularise the respondent even  though  his appointment  was  merely as a Pool Officer, after expiry  of the  period  of tenure of three years from the date  of  his appointment.

     Issue  notice  returnable on 17.2.95 limited  to  this question  stating that the matter would be finally  disposed of at this stage.

     Ms.   Mridula  Ray Bhardwaj, learned counsel,  entered appearance  on behalf of the respondent.  No further  notice is therefore necessary.

     Meanwhile,  the  operation of the Tribunal’s order  to this extent alone shall remain stayed."

     Subsequently, leave to appeal was, however, granted.

     As  to  how  OA  came to be filed  by  the  respondent resulting  in the impugned judgment by the CAT we may  refer to certain facts.

     A  Scientists’  Pool  Scheme  was  formulated  by  the Central Government by Resolution dated October 14, 1958.  It was  stated that Government of India had under consideration the  question of establishing a Pool for temporary placement of  well  qualified  Indian   scientists  and  technologists returning  from  abroad until they are absorbed in  suitable posts  on  more  or less permanent basis.   The  Scheme  was devised  in consultation with CSIR.  CSIR was authorised  to take  all  steps  necessary for the  implementation  of  the Scheme.   Some of the salient features of the Scheme are  as under:  -

     "1.   A  Pool  shall  be  constituted  in  the  manner provided    hereafter   for   a   temporary   placement   of well-qualified Indian scientists and technologists returning from  abroad until they are absorbed in suitable posts on a, more   or  less,  permanent   basis.   Persons  with  Indian qualifications  who  have outstanding academic  records  may also  be  considered  for appointment but, as  the  Pool  is intended  primarily  for  facilitating  the  utilisation  of Indian  scientists and technologists abroad, the  proportion of  persons  with  Indian  qualifications who  may  be  thus appointed  will  not  ordinarily exceed 25 per cent  of  the total number of posts in the Pool.

     Persons  appointed  to the Pool will be attached to  a Government  department  or  a State  Industrial  enterprise, national  Laboratory, university or scientific  institution, or  given  some other work depending on the requirement  and their  qualifications and experience.  Officers of the  pool may  also  be seconded to a Government Department  or  other organisations  including  industrial establishments  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

private  sector.   When  a person is thus seconded  to  some department  or organisation for a period of a year or  more, the  resultant vacancy in the Pool may be filled up if there are qualified candidates in waiting.

     2.  Controlling Authority :  ............

     3.  Emoluments of Pool Officers...........

     4.   Authorised strength  The authorised strength  of the  Pool  at  its initial constitution shall be  100.   The strength may be reviewed as often as is found necessary.

     5.  Recruitment  Selections for the Pool will be made in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission.  A Special Recruitment Board will be set up consisting of......

     6.  ...................

     7.   Conditions of service  The Council of Scientific and   Industrial  Research  will   frame   regulations   for regulating  the  conditions  of service  of  Pool  Officers. Until  such  regulations are framed, Pool Officers  will  be governed   by  the  existing   regulations  which  apply  to temporary  Class I Officers of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research."

     The respondent was given placement as Pool Officer and was attached to the second respondent CDRI.  His appointment letter is dated May 25, 1988 and it reads as under:  -

     Sub.:    Appointment  as  Pool   Officer   under   the Scientists  Pool  Scheme  of the Council of  Scientific  and Industrial Research

     Dear Sir/Madam,

     I  am happy to inform you that you have been  selected for  appointment  as Pool Officer under the Scientists  Pool Scheme of the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research on the following terms and conditions.

     1.   You  are offered a salary of Rs.2425/- per  month (Rupees  Two  thousand four hundred and twenty  five  only), plus allowances as admissible to a temporary Class I Officer of the CSIR for a period of two year(s) or till you obtain a temporary  or  permanent employment in India,  whichever  is earlier.

     2.  This offer is valid for three months only from the date  of this letter and will be treated as withdrawn if  no acceptance  is  received  during this period.   However,  on receipt of a formal acceptance of the offer from you it will be kept open for one year.

     3.  Please intimate your acceptance and return all the enclosed forms duly filled in to this office.

     4.   In case you accept the offer, you will be  placed in  a Government/quasi Government organisation in India.  As far  as  possible,  efforts  will  be  made  to  match  your professional   specialisation   with   the  objectives   and activities  of the organisation of your placement.  You  may also contact such organisations to arrange your placement.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

     5.   In all matters of service you will be governed by rules applicable to temporary Class I Officer of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research.

     6.    You  will  take  oath   of  allegiance  to   the constitution of India in the form enclosed (Annexure II).

     7.  During your stay in the Pool you will be under the administrative control of the Head of the Organisation where you  are placed for routine administrative matters while for all  other  matters  (extension  beyond  the  present  term, contingency  grant,  all  leaves other  than  casual  leave, official tours etc.) you will be under the control of CSIR.

     8.   You will draw your salary as a Pool Officer  from the day you join your duty.

     9.   You  are  entitled  to   a  contingent  grant  of Rs.10,000/-  per annum as per guidelines attached.  You  may submit  your  request for the grant through the Head of  the Department  of the organisation to which you are attached as a Pool Officer.

     10.   Since  the  Scientists Pool  provides  temporary employment  support, you will be free to apply for any  post in  India  in  order  to secure  a  temporary  or  permanent employment.

     11.   Your  continuation  in the  Pool  and  extension beyond the present term will depend upon your performance as reflected through your work reports, sincere efforts made by you to secure a regular employment and a satisfactory report from  the  organisation of your placement.   The  prescribed forms  for  this  purpose  will be supplied to  you  in  due course.

     12.   Since  stay in the Pool is of a short  duration, Pool  Officers  are not allowed to pursue  higher  education leading  to a degree, diploma or a cert.  The Pool  Officers are  also  not allowed to take up any private  practice  nor they  are  entitled to any non-practising allowance in  lieu thereof.

     13.   Your  research  contribution  in  the  form   of processes  and patents acquired during your stay in the Pool if  property  of  the  CSIR and you will  not  transfer  any knowledge or knowhow without prior permission of the CSIR.

     14.   You will be entitled to travelling allowance  as per  the  CSIR  rules for journeys undertaking  on  official duty.   No  allowance  will be admissible for  the  journeys undertaken  to  join  the  duty or on  termination  of  your appointment in the Pool.

     15.  Your appointment in the Pool can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason whatsoever.

     16.  If you have secured a job and do not wish to join the  Pool now, please write to us about the organisation you have joined."

     It  is  not disputed that maximum period for  which  a person  could  be appointed as Pool Officer is  three  years

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

which  in  the  case of the respondent expired on  July  31, 1991.  At that time the respondent was being paid emoluments of Rs.3,737/- per month.

     CSIR  had  another  scheme  called  "Scheme  of  quick recruitment of Scientists (Fellows) for major projects" (for short  "Quick Hire Scheme").  Under this scheme the Director constitutes  a  committee  with   himself  as  Chairman  for selection  of scientists.  This Quick Hire Scheme prescribes different   levels   of  emoluments   depending   upon   the qualifications  etc.   of  the  Scientist,   who  is  to  be appointed.   The appointment of such Fellows (Scientists) is to  be  on contract for a period not exceeding three  years, which  may  be terminated by a notice of three  months  from either  side (or three months’ emoluments in lieu  thereof). The contract could not be extended beyond the maximum period of three years.

     After  the  expiry of the period of three  years,  the respondent  as  Pool  Officer was selected  for  appointment under  Quick  Hire  Scheme  after  a  gap  of  few   months. Respondent had appeared before the Selection Committee under the  Quick  Hire Scheme on March 11, 1992 and  appointed  as Scientist  Fellow of CDRI by appointment letter dated  March 17,  1992.   The Selection Committee considered the case  of the   respondent  for  emoluments  in  the  level/range   of Rs.3000-4000 and recommended his pay as Rs.3400/- per month. On  May  7, 1992 the respondent wrote to the Director,  CDRI seeking  protection  of  his  salary which  earlier  he  was getting as Pool Officer.  We quote his letter:  -

     "Sir,

     With  due  respect hereby, I would like to  draw  your kind notice to the following points:  -

     -  that earlier when I was working as Pool Officer  my total salary was Rs.3737/- p.m.

     - that currently my salary has been fixed at Rs.3400/- p.m.  under the Quick Recruitment Scheme.

     -  that apparently there is big difference in my total emoluments.

     I  shall  be  grateful,  if you could  kindly  do  the needful  to  protract  my  salary  status  to  encourage  my Scientific Zeal and enthusiasm.

     With regards,

     Yours faithfully,

     Sd/-  (DR.   AJAY  K.  JAIN) Scientist Fellow  of  DRI Division of Toxicology"

     Request  of  the respondent was not acceded to and  he was  informed  by  Office Memorandum dated June 5,  1992  as follows:

     "No.5(136)/82-Estt.I(Vol.II) Dated 5.6.1992

     OFFICE MEMORANDUM

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

     With  reference to his application dated 7th May, 1992 Dr.   Ajay Kumar Jain, Scientist Fellow is informed that the Selection Committee recommended his appointment as Scientist Fellow  on  a consolidated salary of Rs.3400/- p.m.  in  the range of Rs.3000-4000 under quick hire scheme.

     Since the appointment has been made in accordance with the   recommendation  of  the   Selection  Committee  it  is regretted  that his request for fixing his emoluments at the level  of Rs.3737/- drawn by him as Pool Officer can not  be acceded to."

     While  respondent was appointed as Scientist Fellow of CDRI under Quick Hire Scheme with effect from March 17, 1992 for  one year at the first instance, on the expiry of period of  one year Director CDRI had approved the extension of his contract for a further period of six months with effect from March  17,  1993.   Representation  of  the  respondent  for extension  of his tenure was rejected and the rejection  was communicated  to him by Office Memorandum dated September 8, 1993 as under:  -

     "No.5(136)/82-Estt.I.  Dated 08.09.1993

     OFFICE MEMORANDUM

     With reference to his application dated 12.08.1993 Dr. A.K.   Jain,  Fellow  of  CDRI is informed that  it  is  not possible to extend the tenure beyond 16.09.1993."

     The  respondent  approached  the CAT  challenging  the Office Memorandum dated September 8, 1993 and also rejection of  his request for being paid at the rate of Rs.3737/-, the rate  at  which  he was drawing as Pool Officer  before  his appointment as Scientist Fellow under the Quick Hire Scheme. Respondent  further  prayed that he be reinstated with  full arrears  of  salary and other perquisites and  consequential benefits.   Respondent also sought payment of his salary for the  period from August 1, 1991 when the appointment as Pool Officer  ceased  and  till   his  subsequent  engagement  as Scientist  Fellow on March 17, 1992.  His OA was allowed  by the CAT with the directions aforesaid.

     Before  we consider the rival submissions we may  note the  case  of Pratibha Misra, which came to this Court on  a Special  Leave  Petition filed by the CSIR.  Pratibha  Misra was also doing research work since her appointment as Junior Research  Fellow in 1981.  Lastly, by order dated  11.6.1993 she  was  appointed  as   Senior  Research  Associate  (Pool Officer)  under  Scientists Pool Scheme on the basic pay  of Rs.2350/-  per  month plus allowances for a period of  three years  with  no  further extension.  As in the case  of  the respondent  before us the offer to Pratibha Misra  indicated that  she  would be free to apply for any post in  India  in order to secure temporary or permanent employment.  Pratibha Misra  represented  to  the Director of  National  Botanical Research  Institute,  Lucknow (NBRI) for her appointment  in regular  cadre  of CSIR on the post of Scientist.  She  also similarly  addressed a letter to the Director General,  CSIR on  the  same  subject.   However, she was  told  by  Office Memorandum dated November 22, 1995 of the NBRI rejecting her request  for appointment in the regular cadre of CSIR on the post  of  Scientist ’C’/’B’ not being covered by the  extant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

rules.   She was also advised by the said Office  Memorandum to  apply  against  the  post  as  and  when  advertised  in accordance  with her area of research.  Similarly, by letter dated  January  9, 1996 Pratibha Misra was also informed  by CSIR  that  the  extant  guidelines   did  not  provide  for automatic  absorption  of Pool Officers in CSIR  in  regular service.     Pratibha   Misra     challenged   both    these communications  by filing OA before the CAT, Lucknow  Bench. CAT  allowed her OA by issuing various directions as  under: -

     "20.   Considering  therefore, the conspectus  of  the case in the background of the foregoing discussions and also keeping  in view the principles of equity and justice  while we  reject  the  reliefs  prayed for by  the  applicant,  we simultaneously order as below:

     (i)  The  applicant shall continue to be paid  at  the existing rate until she is absorbed in one of the scientific posts under the CSIR and her services may be utilised by the respondents during this period in an appropriate manner.

     (ii) The case of the applicant shall be considered for appointment  as Scientist in an existing or future  vacancy, if necessary by granting age relaxation, as per CSIR Service Rules.

     (iii)  The  respondents shall formulate a  scheme  for absorption  of scientific researchers at suitable levels  in respect  of  those  who have put in long years  of  research particularly those with 15 years or more.

     Or  in  the alternative the respondents  may  suitably amend  CSIR Service Rules, 1994 so as to include a provision for  absorption of Scientific Researchers at suitable levels in  respect of those who have put in long years of  research work,  particularly, 15 years or more.  Modifications to  be made in the Service Rules may provide for grant of weightage as  may be considered appropriate to the period of  research work  already put in, especially for purposes of  relaxation in  age  and  qualifications.  Provisions of  weightage  for purposes  of fixation of seniority and for grant of  advance increments could also be considered.

     21.   The above directions except those in Para  20(i) which  come  into force immediately shall be  complied  with within a period of six months from the date of communication of these orders.

     22.   In  case  the  applicant has  already  not  been absorbed  as per directions contained in Para 20(ii)  above, her  case shall be considered within 2 months of formulation of  the scheme or the amendment of the service rules as  the case  may  be,  in  pursuance of the  observations  in  Para 20(iii) above."

     Aggrieved  CSIR and others came to this Court  seeking special  leave  to appeal.  However, by order dated  May  2, 1997  this  Court  refused to interfere with  the  following observations:  -

     "We  feel  that  having  regard   to  the  facts   and circumstances of this case, the direction of the Tribunal in respect of the respondent Dr.  Pratibha Misra, should not be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

disturbed.   However, so far as the formulation of scheme is concerned,  we  direct  the   petitioners  to  consider  the question  of formulating a scheme for people who are working on  contract basis.  The special leave petition is  disposed of."

     We  do not think that decision of the CAT in the  case of  Pratibha  Misra  and  dismissal  of  the  special  leave petition  by this Court would have any bearing on the  issue involved in the present appeal.  This Court did not consider the  issues involved in the case of Pratibha Misra on  merit and  proceeded  to dispose of the special leave petition  on the facts and the circumstances of that case.

     Thereafter  in view of the directions of this Court  a scheme  was propounded on July 3, 1998 effective from May 2, 1997  the date of dismissal of the special leave petition in Pratibha  Misra’s  case  by  this Court.   This  scheme  was challenged  in  the CAT and also by filing a petition  under Article  32 of the Constitution in this Court.  The petition under  Article 32 of the Constitution was, however,  allowed to  be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the Scheme before the  CAT.  It is contended by the appellants that purpose of two  schemes,  i.e.,  Scientist Pool Scheme and  Quick  Hire Scheme  are  altogether different.  Under the Pool Scheme  a scientist  is  retained to check the brain-drain from  India and in the meanwhile to secure alternative job.  The purpose of  Quick Hire Scheme though the result may be the same  but here  it  is  to give quick appointment to  a  scientist  on contract  basis  which is not to exceed three years  period. Appellants,  therefore, contended that since the purpose  of both the schemes is different, the respondent could not have asked  for emoluments in Quick Hire Scheme at the same  rate he  was getting as Pool Officer.  Technically that may be so but  when  Quick Hire Scheme envisaged an emolument  between three to four thousand there does not appear to be any sound reason  for the Selection Committee to recommend pay of  the respondent  at the rate of Rs.3,400/- and not at Rs.3,737/-. Selection  Committee  must have been aware of the amount  of emoluments  drawn by the respondent as Pool Officer.  We are left in dark as to what weighed with the Selection Committee to  recommend  lower  emoluments.   It   is  the  CSIR,  the appellant,  under  which both the schemes are being  worked. We can only say that the decision of the Selection Committee is  not  informed  with proper reason.  CAT  is,  therefore, right  in directing that the respondent be paid @ Rs.3,737/- per  month while working as Scientist Fellow under the Quick Hire  Scheme.   Appointment of the respondent  as  Scientist Fellow  under Quick Higher Scheme was for the period of  one year  to  be extended for a maximum period of  three  years. After the expiry of one year of period, he was informed that his  contract  could not be extended beyond a period of  six months  effective  from March 17, 1993.  His  services  were terminated  after  the expiry of this period.  CAT has  held that  the  extension of the placement of respondent for  six months  period was not in order as the letter of appointment stated  that the period was renewable on year to year  basis and  further  that the appointment of the respondent  should not  have been made co-terminus with the project only.   The duration  of tenure of Scientist Fellow is as under :   "The appointment of such Fellows will be on contract for a period not  exceeding  three  years and it may be terminated  by  a notice  of  three months from either side (or three  months’ emoluments  in  lieu  thereof).    The  contract  cannot  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

extended beyond the above maximum period."

     We  may  also  quote  here  paras 1  and  3  from  the appointment letter dated March 17, 1992 of the respondent :

     "1.   Your  appointment  will be on a contract  for  a period  of  one year extendable on year to year basis for  3 years.   Your  services can, however, be terminated  at  any time  after  a notice of 3 months’ from either side  without assigning  any reason.  3.  The position is contractual  and will  not confer any right whatsoever for absorption in  the regular strength of the Institute."

     It  would,  therefore, appear that though the  maximum period  is  three  years,  it could not  be  said  that  the contract  could not be terminated before the expiry of  that period.   Rather  the  clause   clearly  provides  that  the contract  could  be  terminated by giving  notice  of  three months from either side.  However, extension of contract for a  further  period  of  six months does not  mean  that  the appellants  have  exercised  their option to  terminate  the contract  by  giving  three  months  notice.   Extension  of contract for six months cannot be equated with the notice of termination  of contract as provided in para 1 of the letter of  appointment.   The question then arises if the  contract could be extended for six months period only when the Scheme and  the  letter  of appointment envisage extension  of  the contract on year to year basis.  Both the schemes serve twin purposes.    Highly   qualified    Indian   scientists   and technologists  returning from abroad get temporary placement until  they  are absorbed in suitable post on more  or  less permanent  basis.  Nation also gains from the experience and knowledge  of  the scientists who have been working  abroad. It  is  with  pride that these scientists  return  to  their motherland.   They  are  to  be   shown  due  deference  and consideration.   Conditions  are to be created that they  do not again leave the country.  The emoluments which are given to  these scientists cannot be treated as a mere dole.  They come  back  to the country of their origin with high  hopes. Disappointment  should not await them in the long run.   The respondent  was  working  as Post Doctoral Fellow  in  Japan before he came to India to be placed as Pool Officer.  After the  expiry  of his tenure as Pool Officer, he was  selected and  appointed  as  Scientist Fellow under  the  Quick  Hire Scheme  by  duly  constituted Selection Committee.   He  was appointed  for one year.  His placement could be extended on year  to  year  basis for a maximum period of  three  years. After  the  expiry  of first one year period, he  was  given extension  of  six months.  His representation  for  further extension  was  turned down.  We do not know if his case  of extension  was  again placed before the Selection  Committee and  what reasons, if any, prevailed upon the appellants  to extend  the term of the respondent for six months only.   In the  counter  affidavit before the CAT or in the grounds  of appeal,  appellants  have not given any reasons for such  an extension  of  six months period only.  This action  of  the appellants  on  the face of it seems to be rather  arbitrary and  it  appears to us that in this respect they have  meted out shabby treatment to the respondent, a scientist.  In the circumstances,  therefore, CAT is right in holding that  the respondent  would  have continued for a full term  of  three years  under  the Quick Hire Scheme.  But then the  CAT  has gone  a  step  further and has directed  the  appellants  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

regularise  the  services of the respondent which  does  not appear  to be correct.  No doubt, Scientists Pool Scheme and Quick  Hire  Scheme  provided  a  sort  of  cushion  to  the scientists returning from abroad and under the circumstances period  of their engagement under either of the schemes  has to  be  for  a limited period.  For regular  appointment  or absorption  in CSIR or any of its bodies the scientists have to  be governed by the relevant service rules as applicable. Employment  under  the  Quick Hire Scheme  was  on  contract basis.   The  respondent  was not governed by  CSIR  Service Rules,  1994  for recruitment of Scientific,  Technical  and Support  Staff  as  he would not be  appointed  under  those Rules.  An appointment under the Quick Hire Scheme cannot be equated  with  regular  appointment  as  per  the   relevant recruitment  rules of CSIR against a sanctioned post.  To be eligible  for  regularisation,  the respondent had  to  come within  the  relevant rules.  It is difficult to  appreciate the directions issued by the CAT in the circumstances of the case.   A Pool Officer or a Scientist Fellow under the Quick Hire  Scheme  cannot  continue to hold on to  the  job  till superannuation.   The  respondent  has referred  to  certain instances  where  scientists  were  appointed  on  permanent contractual  post  by CSIR without following  the  selection procedure.  If something wrong has been done in violation of the rules, we cannot use that as an example to perpetuate an illegality.   In any case those cases are not before us  and it  is difficult for us to comment if there was violation of any  rules regarding those scientists.  Respondent, however, cannot  take  advantage of an illegality, if there  is  any. Appointment  as Scientist Fellow under the Quick Hire Scheme cannot  be understood to mean regular appointment under  the relevant  recruitment rules applicable to CSIR or to  bodies under  its  control.  The term ’appointment’ has  been  only loosely  used.  It is mere placement as Scientist Fellow and not  appointment in the sense in which this term is used  in service  law.  As noted above, a scheme has been framed  for absorption  in the Pool effective from May 2, 1997.  If  the respondent case is covered by that scheme, he will certainly be  entitled to be considered thereunder.  We may refer to a decision  of  this  Court  which was  rendered  in  somewhat similar circumstances.  In Director, Institute of Management Development,  U.P, vs.  Smt.  Pushpa Srivastava [JT 1992 (4) SC 489 = (1992) 4 SCC 33] the respondent was first appointed as  Research Executive on a consolidated fixed  compensation of Rs.1,250/- per month on contract basis for a period three months.   It would specifically stated in the order that the appointment  was purely on ad hoc basis.  Appointment of the respondent   continued  on  various   posts  like   Training Executive or Executive on different emoluments but always on ad  hoc  basis.   Before the expiry of the last  period  for which  the  appointment was made the respondent  filed  writ petition  in  the  Allahabad High Court seeking  regular  or permanent  appointment.  She succeeded.  High Court directed that she may be taken back on duty on the post hitherto held by  her and that her services be regularised within a period of  three  months.  On appeal filed in this Court, both  the parties  referred  to  relevant   rules  governing   service conditions  of the employees of the appellant in support  of their  respective  contentions.  Appellant referred  to  the office  letter dated January 9, 1990 by which the respondent was  appointed which stated that "with effect from the  date of  joining  Smt.  Pushpa Rani Srivastava is appointed on  a consolidated  fixed  pay of Rs.2400/- per month on  contract basis  for  a  period of six months in the  Institute.   The appointment  of  Smt.  Srivasvata is purely on ad hoc  basis

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

and  is  terminable without any notice.  " On that basis  it was  submitted that Pushpa Rani was appointed on contractual basis  on a consolidated pay and duration of appointment was six  months.  The appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and was  terminable  without  any notice.  After  examining  the various  contentions  this  Court held that  the  directions given  by  the High Court were not valid.  It said that  the appointment was purely ad hoc and on contractual basis for a limited  period.  Therefore, on the expiry of the period  of six  months the right to remain in the post comes to an end. Thus  viewed,  which  this  Court said was  the  only  view, judgment  of  the High Court was set aside.   The  Assistant Director of the CDIR and Scientist-In-Charge appreciated the work   of   the   respondent   and   recommended   for   the regularisation of his services and these recommendations did merit  consideration.  The respondent, it appears, after the expiry of his fixed period continued to work as Pool Officer under  the  Assistant Director CDRI in the hope  of  getting extension  till  he was selected Scientist Fellow under  the Quick  Hire  Scheme  without there being any  order  in  his favour  respecting that period.  He could not, therefore, be awarded  any  emoluments  for  that   period  for  which  he continued  to  work as Pool Officer without there being  any order in his favour.  Yet the CAT awarded him emoluments for that  period  which  appear  to be  rather  irregular.   We, however,  notice that the leave was granted only to consider if  the  CAT could give directions to absorb and  regularise the  respondent  when  his appointment was  merely  as  Pool Officer  or  Scientist  Fellow.  We  shall  not,  therefore, disturb  the order of the CAT that the respondent to be paid emoluments  for  the period from July 31, 1991 to March  17, 1992  @ Rs.3,737/- per month.  We, therefore, set aside  the impugned  judgment  of the Central  Administrative  Tribunal (Lucknow  Bench)  whereby it directed the appellants to  put the  respondent on duty as Scientist Fellow as if he was not turned  out on the basis of time limit and to regularise his services  taking  into  account his full length  of  service rendered for CSIR as well as CDRI with continuity of service and  the  seniority.   The impugned  judgment  is,  however, upheld  to the extent that the respondent would be  entitled to  emoluments  @ Rs.3,737/- per month as  Scientist  Fellow under the Quick Hire Scheme from March 17, 1992 for a period of  three  years  and further the respondent  will  also  be entitled to emoluments at this rate for the period from July 31, 1991 to March 16, 1992.  Since there was no stay of this Court  regarding payment of these amounts to the respondent, he shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed  payments.   Appellants shall be entitled to  deduct the  amount  already  paid to the respondent.   The  arrears shall  be  paid within a period of eight weeks  from  today. The  appeal is partly allowed.  There shall, however, be  no order as to costs.