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.