Madras High Court
The Indian Council Of Agricultural ... vs V.Selvaraj on 9 September, 2024
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2024:MHC:3491
W.P.No.33827 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.33827 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
1.The Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Rep. by its Director General,
Krishi Bhavan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi.
2.The Secretary,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhavan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi.
3.The Director,
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute,
Ernakulam North P.O., Kochi.
4.The Scientist-in-Charge,
Madras Research Centre of Central Marine
Fisheries Research Institute,
No.75, Santhome Road, Chennai. .. Petitioners
vs
1.V.Selvaraj
2.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal
Madras Bench, Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records to the order dated
16.02.2012 made in O.A.No.1102 of 2010 on the file of the Registrar,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
W.P.No.33827 of 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, the 2nd
respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.T.Arunan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Saravanan
for Mr.T.Sai Krishnan
R2 - Tribunal
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
The petitioners (P1 to P3) are officials in the Indian Council of
Agricultural Research (collectively referred to as ICAR/petitioner). P4 is
the Madras Centre of the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute. The
petitioners challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal (in short, 'Tribunal/CAT') granting relief to the first
respondent/R1, who had joined services as Laboratory-cum-Field
Assistant on 21.09.1970. The pay scale at the time of his joining service
was Rs.110 - 180/-.
2. The prayer of R1 before the Tribunal was for re-fixation of
pay scale in the scale of Rs.425 - 700/- with effect from 01.01.1973 with a
consequential induction into scientific services from prior date, and grant
of revision, upgradation, promotion, career advancement and all other
service monetary benefits with back wages and interest.
3. The prayer was based on the recommendations of the Third
Pay Commission that had been implemented by the petitioners to various
category of employees, selectively denying the same to some categories
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of employees alone.
4. The mainstay of the case of R1 was that he possesses a
Bachelors Degree in Zoology and is thus entitled to enhanced pay sale as
per Technical Service Rules of the ICAR.
5. The Tribunal had allowed the original application taking note
of his eligibility as well as the fact that similarly placed persons had been
granted the benefit of enhanced pay scale in various locations viz.,
Cuttack, Ernakulam and Delhi, by virtue of orders passed by the Regional
Benches of the CAT and High Court.
6. Mr.M.T.Arunan, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of
the petitioner would reiterate the submissions made before the Tribunal
emphasising on the fact that the applications of the respondents had been
grossly bleated. The aspect of delay has been considered by the Tribunal
at paragraph 6 of the order in the following terms:-
“6. Now, let us examine the issue of delay. It is true
that the applicant wants the relief from 1.1.1973. It
is also true that some of the applicants have retired
in the year 2009 and the present applications have
been filed after their retirement. However, we
cannot deny them the benefit which has been
granted to similarly placed persons by the
respondents by implementing the orders which we
have cited above. In the instant case, we do not
find that by granting the benefit of pay scale sought
for by the applicants, the same in any manner will
affect any other person. In this connection, we
would like to reproduce the below the relevant
portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India and others v
Tarsem Singh(2008 (8) SCC 648):
'To summarise, normally, a belated service
related claim will be rejected on the ground of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
delay and laches (where remedy is sought by
filing a writ petition) or limitation (where
remedy is sought by an application to the
Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions
to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing
wrong. Where a service related claim is based
on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted
even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy,
with reference to the date on which the
continuing wrong commenced, if such
continuing wrong creates a continuing source of
injury. But there is an exception to the
exception. If the grievance is in respect of any
order or administrative decision which related to
or affected several others also, and if the re-
opening of the issue would affect the settled
rights of third parties, then the claim will not be
entertained. For example, if the issue relates to
payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief
may be granted in spite of delay as it does not
affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim
involved issues relating to seniority or
promotion etc., affecting others, delay would
render the claim stale and doctrine of
laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the
consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a
past period, the principles relating to
recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a
consequence, High Courts will restrict the
consequential relief relating to arrears normally
to a period of three years prior to the date of
filing of the writ petition.'”
7. On a careful appreciation of the order of the Tribunal as
extracted above, we concur with the finding that the delay is not relevant
in the present case and must be condoned.
8. Coming to the merits, the eligibility of the private respondent is
not in question as it is admitted that R1 possesses a Bachelors Degree in
Zoology.
9. The Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Agricultural
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Research v Bishamber Singh & Ors [W.P.(C) No.16025 of 2006 dated
25.02.2008], has also considered an identical case holding in favour of
similarly placed employees. This decision has attained finality. As against
the decision of the Ernakulam Tribunal, an appeal had come to be filed by
the ICAR and in the case of Agricultural Research and anr v V.Ravindran
C.A.No.4159 of 2009 and batch and by an order dated 08.02.2023, the
appeal has been dismissed by the Apex Court.
10. The objections of the ICAR to the effect that the respondents
did not possess qualifications as required under Appendix IV of the
Technical Services Rules, came to be rejected on the ground that as per
Rule 6.3 of the Technical Services Rules, longer experience i.e.,
experience of 10 years was sufficient to enable movement of the
respondents from Category I to Category II. Thus, career advancement
cannot be refused to R1 in view of the admitted position of their
experience. Same is the factual position in the present matter.
11. The Apex Court has specifically found that those employees in
Category I were discharging the same functions as discharged by
employees in Category II and hence they satisfy the test of functionality
as well. The discussion and conclusion of the Apex Court is as below:-
“The main thrust of the argument of the learned
counsel for the Appellants is that under Rule 6.10,
the assessment of the eligible persons for merit
promotion/advance increments in Categories I and
II has to be done by a Selection Committee.
According to the learned counsel, the procedure for
assessment of persons for grant of promotion is
also detailed in Appendix III of the Rules. In short,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the contention of the learned counsel for the
Appellant is that the Tribunal as well as the High
Court conveniently overlooked all these Rules and
went solely by Rule 6.3.
But we are not impressed with the aforesaid
contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants.
Rule 6.3 reads as follows:-
“6.3 As per the revised grade structure, the
entrants of Category I at T-1 grade would
continue to be regulated for assessment from
T-1 to T-2 after five years of service, as at
present. However, the T-2 grade personnel,
possessing the qualifications, as prescribed
hereinfurther under the Notification of 3
February 2000 for Category II for direct
recruitment, would be eligible for assessment
promotion to T-3 grade after five years of
service, while those not possessing such
qualifications shall become eligible for
assessment promotion to T-3 grade only after
10 years of service in T-2 grade. The
assessment promotions from T-3 to T-4 and T-
4 to T-5 shall continue to be regulated at five
years interval, as 6 at present.”
A careful reading of Rule 6.3 extracted above would
show that persons working in T-1 grade in Category
I, possessing the qualifications prescribed in the
Rules will be eligible for assessment promotion to T-
3 grade in Category II, after five years of service.
But those not possessing such qualifications would
become eligible for assessment promotion to T-3
grade only after ten years of service in T-2 grade.
In other words, persons possessing the
qualifications prescribed in Appendix IV to the
service rules, will be eligible for movement from
grade T-2 in Category I to grade T3 or T-4 in
Category II, if they have put in service of five years.
But if they do not have the educational
qualifications, they must put in ten years of service.
Therefore, Rule 6.3 has been rightly interpreted by
the Tribunal as well as by the High Court.
Coming to Rule 6.9 on which reliance is placed, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
seen that the same deals with the question of
determining the eligibility of a person for grant of
merit promotion or advance increments, which
reads as follows:-
“6.9 For determining the eligibility of a person
for the grant of merit promotion or advance
increments, the entire period of the service in
the grade including the service rendered in
the pre-revised scale of pay will be counted.
(i) The service rendered by an individual in
another Institute from where he comes on
transfer on compassionate ground will be
taken into account for computing the eligibility
period of5 years. (ICAR letter No.7-5/83-
Per.III dated 27 August 1984).
(ii) For the purpose of computing the
prescribed period for assessment, the period
of ad-hoc service in the same grade and also
the period of leave, including study
leave/EOL, and period spent on deputation,
will also be counted.
(iii) However, it may be added that the
following periods are not to be counted for
computing the prescribed period of eligibility
for assessment/promotion to the next higher
grade.
(a) Period of suspension treated as dies-non
for all purposes inclusive of assessment under
Technical Service Rules;
(b) Period of reduction to lower grade as
measure of penalty.
(ICAR letter No.7-34/80-Per.III dated 19 May
1982).”
Unfortunately for the Appellants, the Rule does not
make a reference to the qualifications stipulated in
Appendix IV. Even Rule 6.10, on which reliance is
placed, merely stipulates the procedure to be
followed for movement from Category I to Category
II by referring the matter to a Selection Committee.
A careful look at the entire scheme of the 1975
Rules, as modified on 3.2.2000, would show that
Rules 7.4 is the only Rule which refers to the model
qualification. Rule 7.4 reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“7.4 The Model Qualifications prescribed for
different groups of the three categories are
given in Appendix IV. 8 Note: Alternative
qualifications circulated vide the Council's letter
No. 7(10)/78-Per.III dated 27.1.1979 are
applicable to the Council's employees for the
purpose of promotion only against the 33.3%
vacancies, reserved for departmental
promotions. These qualifications will not,
therefore, be applicable to the Council's
employees when they apply for technical posts
against 66.6% quota reserved for direct
recruitment.”
Rule 7.4 is followed immediately by Rule 8, which
deals with direct recruitment. Rule 8.3 which makes
the qualifications prescribed in Appendix IV
applicable to appointments, reads as follows:
“8.3 The minimum educational/trade
qualifications prescribed for different groups of
the three categories will be as per Appendix IV.
Any modifications to this Appendix, if considered
necessary, will be made in consultation with the
Agricultural Scientists’ Recruitment Board.
Note: In the case of ex-servicemen, the
equivalence for their qualifications with those
prescribed in Appendix IV will be decided in
consultation with the Director-General of the
Resettlement, Ministry of Defence.”
Unfortunately, Rule 8.3 finds a place only under the
heading ‘Direct Recruitment’.
Therefore, in the absence of any specific reference
to the educational qualifications prescribed in
Appendix IV and also in view of the enhanced
experience criteria prescribed in Rule 6.3 for those
not possessing the educational qualifications, we do
not think that the Tribunal or the High Court
committed a serious error warranting interference
by this Court.
It must be pointed out that the Respondents were
appointed more than 50 years ago and they have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
retired perhaps more than a decade or two ago.
Learned counsel for the Appellants expressed an
apprehension that this interpretation may open a
floodgate. But we are only dealing with the cases of
the Respondents and in particular, Rule 6.3.
Therefore, we do not think that this can really open
the floodgate.
This case actually arises out of the merger of two
grades, namely, T-I-3 in Category I and grade T-II-
3 in Category II. Therefore, we do not think that the
apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for
the Appellants will be justified.
In view of the above, the Appeals are dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”
12. Incidentally, the High Court of Orissa, has taken a view
adverse to R1 as against which, a Special Leave Petition has been filed by
similarly placed respondents in C.A.No. 007118 of 2011 which is pending
before the Apex Court.
13. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court
in the case of V.Ravindran, as noticed aforesaid, we have no hesitation in
confirming the order of the CAT impugned before us and dismiss this writ
petition. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M., J] [G.A.M., J]
09.09.2024
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes
ssm
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal
Madras Bench, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and
G. ARUL MURUGAN.,J
ssm
09.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
