[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Indian Counsel Of Medical Research vs R.Karunagaran on 23 February, 2026
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 30-01-2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
WP No. 25230 of 2024
and
WP No. 32732 of 2024
and
WMP Nos. 27557 & 35573 of 2024
Cause title in W.P.No.25230 of 2024:
1.The Indian Counsel of Medical Research
Represented by its Director General,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
2.The Director
National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health (NIRRH) ICMR,
Jehangir Merwanji Street , Parel,
Mumbai - 400 012. … Petitioner (s)
__________
Page1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
Vs.
1. R.Karunagaran
2. A Ramasamy
3. Union of India
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
4. Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Madras High Court Compound,
Chennai-104.
R3 deleted as per order dated 14.10.2024 in
W.P.No.25230 of 2024 by ASMJ & GAMJ
..Respondent(s)
Cause title in W.P.No.32732 of 2024:
1. Indian Council of Medical Research
Represented by its Director General,
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110 029.
2. The Director
National Institute for Research in Reproductive
Health (NIRRH) ICMR,
__________
Page2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
Jehangir Merwanji Street , Parel,
Mumbai - 400 012.
3. The Director
Vector Control Research Centre,
VCRC Road, Indra Nagar,
Priyadarshani Nagar,
Puducherry - 605 004.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. B Pandithurai
2. Union of India
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. Central Administrative Tribunal
Chennai Bench,
Rep.by its Registrar,
Madras High Court Compound,
Chennai 600 104.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer in W.P.No.25230 of 2024: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the
records from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, relating to its order
dated 06.02.2024 in O.A.No.310/00128/2021 and quash the same as illegal,
arbitrary, without jurisdiction.
__________
Page3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
Prayer in W.P.No.32732 of 2024: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the
records from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, relating to its order
dated 19.03.2024 in O.A.No.310/00367/2020 and quash the same as illegal,
arbitrary, without jurisdiction.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, Standing Counsel
in both WPs.
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Vigneswaran for R1 & R2
in W.P.No.25230 of 2024
R3 – deleted, R4 – Tribunal
Mr.C. Vigneswaran for R1
in W.P.No.32732 of 2024
R2 – Unserved, R3 – Tribunal
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)
The respondents in O.A.No.128 of 2021 aggrieved by an order dated
06.02.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Branch,
have filed W.P.No.25230 of 2024. The respondents in O.A.No.367 of 2020
aggrieved by an order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chennai Bench, have filed W.P.No.32732 of 2024.
__________
Page4 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
2.It is to be noted that in the order in O.A.No.367 of 2020 the Tribunal
had extracted the order in O.A.No.128 of 2021 and had merely affirmed that
particular order.
3.In view of the fact that the issues raised in both the Original
Applications and the grounds raised in both the Writ Petitions are the same, a
common order is passed in the two Writ Petitions.
4.O.A.No.128 of 2021 had been filed by two applicants viz.,
R.Karunagaran and A.Ramasamy who were aged about 63 years at the time of
filing of the Original Application seeking a direction against the respondents
therein / writ petitioners to implement MBAPS scheme in accordance with the
guidelines dated 14.09.2016 and 06.12.2016 and grant consequential benefits
with interest till date of payment, as recommended by the Expert Committee.
5.O.A.No.367 of 2020 had been filed by B.Pandithurai again seeking the
same relief namely, to grant benefits under MBAPS scheme and consequential
benefits with arrears and interest.
6.The applicants before the Tribunal / respondents herein had been
appointed in ICMR at Puducherry in the years 1981, 1982 and 1983 under
__________
Page5 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
regular process for project based posts. It is to be noted that ICMR was an
autonomous body under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare and later designated as a Department of Health Research under the
control of the said Ministry.
7.It is the contention of the respondents herein that they had been working
for a long period about of about 30 years and their services had not been
regularized. They were also not granted the benefits of Leave Travel
Concession, Time Bound Promotion, Selection Grade, Gratuity or Pension, as
that of regular employees. They had, therefore, approached the Tribunal seeking
regularization of their services in the year 2011. The Tribunal passed orders
regularizing their services from the date of their initial appointment and had also
directed that all service benefits should be extended to them. Thereafter, the
respondents had been brought into regular service from the date of their initial
appointment together with all attendant benefits. The respondents were also
granted with pensionary benefits including the benefits under ACP/MACP
scheme. They had then attained the age of superannuation and had retired.
8.Thereafter, representations had been given by the Employees
Association to implement the recommendations of a Committee headed by
Dr.B.Ramamoorthi, wherein he had held that the schemes implemented in CSIR
(Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research) must also be implemented in
__________
Page6 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
ICMR. One of the schemes implemented in CSIR was a scheme called IRAS
which was not extended to all sections of ICMR, but selectively to certain
section alone. Alleging discrimination, the employees again approached the
Tribunal seeking implementation of IRAS. The Tribunal passed an order
directing implementation. This order was upheld by the Delhi High Court.
9.Thereafter, ICMR had framed guidelines for introducing Merit Based
Assessment Promotion Scheme (MBAPS) and issued Office Memorandums and
clarifications. The scheme was quite similar to the existing scheme of
ACP/MACP to upgrade the pay of an employee who stagnates in a particular
post without promotional avenue. However, implementation of MBAPS was
conditional on examining ACR and performance of the employees. The
respondents had approached the Tribunal seeking extension of the MBAP
Scheme to them also, even though they had retired on attaining the age of
superannuation much earlier. By the orders which are impugned in the present
writ petitions, the Tribunal had directed grant of MBAPS to them.
10.It had been the contention of the writ petitioners that there were
guidelines issued by the Government for application of MBAP Scheme for
Group-B, C and D technical staff. But however, since, the respondents had
already retired on attaining the age of superannuation, it would hardly be
possible to examine their ACRs and grant the benefits under the scheme. It was
__________
Page7 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
also contended that the respondents were working in super-numery posts which
had been created to accommodate them as there were no vacancies. It had been
stated that they had already been extended with the benefits under the ACP and
MACP schemes. The Tribunal, however, overlooked that particular submission
and allowed the Original Applications, necessitating filing of the present Writ
Petitions.
11.Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, assailed the order of the Tribunal by pointing out that the
respondents had been working on and from 1981, 1982 and 1983 onwards and
that directions were issued to regularize their services and super-numery posts
were created and they were accommodated in such posts since there were no
vacancies available. The learned Standing Counsel stated that the employees
had been granted the benefits under the ACP / MACP scheme during their
service. They had never raised any objection that they were denied that
particular benefit. It had been contended that for project specific employees or
even for those holding super-numery posts ACRs were not opened and
employees were not assessed on their performance.
12.It was further pointed out that, however, MBAP Scheme should be
implemented on assessment of ACRs and since those records were not
maintained for the respondents, they were not entitled for the benefits under the
__________
Page8 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
said scheme. It had also been contended that they had also been granted the
third ACP upon their retirement. The learned Standing Counsel therefore
contended that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in granting the relief without
examining the possibility of granting of such relief and without considering the
objections raised that the respondents would be granted the same benefits twice
over if the directions to the Tribunal were to be implemented.
13.Mr.C.Vigneswaran, learned counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents, however, disputed the said contentions. The learned counsel
contended that the posts to which the respondents were accommodated did not
have any promotional avenues and therefore, they stagnated in the same posts
from the date of regularization till their dates of retirement. The learned counsel
contended that though ACP / MACP schemes had been implemented, they were
not as beneficial as the MBAP Scheme. The learned counsel contended that the
respondents were also assessed with respect to their skills and working
capabilities and contended that there was no reason to deny them with the
benefits of the MBAP Scheme. The learned counsel contended that the Tribunal
had assessed all aspects and had held that they should have been granted the
option to switch over to the MBAP Scheme, which option was not granted to
them till they were regularized. It was therefore contended that the order of the
Tribunal must be upheld and the writ petitions must be dismissed.
__________
Page9 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
14.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the
material records.
15.The respondents herein had been working as Social Workers / Drivers
in various projects of ICMR at Puducherry. They were employed till the
completion of their particular projects. They had all been employed in the years
1981, 1982 and 1983 onwards. They were continuously working in temporary
posts without being regularized. They had therefore approached the Tribunal
seeking regularization. The Tribunal had allowed their applications and directed
that they should be regularized from the date of their initial appointment and
should also be extended with service and monetary benefits. They were then
accommodated under various branches or departments of ICMR.
16.However, since there was a compulsion to absorb them to regular
posts and there were no vacancies available, super-numery posts were created to
accommodate them. They were then granted all necessary benefits including
GPF, Pension, ACP/MACP etc. They were also paid under the regular pay
scale. Thereafter, they were also given the first ACP and also the second
MACP. The 7th Central Pay Commissioner revision of pay was also extended to
them. The respondents then retired on attaining their age of superannuation.
They were also paid the third ACP/MACP. The matters should have rested at
that.
__________
Page10 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
17.However, a Committee headed by Dr.B.Ramamoorthi had given a
report that the schemes implemented in a parallel organization / CSIR should
also be implemented for the benefit of the employees of ICMR. This also
included extending the benefits under a different scheme / MBAPS. Naturally,
this would require assessment of merit. This could be done only by examining
the ACRs maintained with respect to each employee. It is the contention of the
writ petitioners that since the respondents were working in super-numery posts,
ACRs had not been opened and that therefore there was no possibility of
assessing their merit.
18.It is seen from the records that the respondents had been granted the
benefits of the first and second ACP and MACP during their periods of service
and had also been extended with the third ACP/MACP after their retirement.
The Tribunal had however examined the Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2016
which provided the guidelines for implementation of MBAPS for technical staff
of ICMR. It was provided that it would come into effect from 01.01.1987
notionally and with actual benefits w.e.f 01.01.1996. The first assessment would
be of those employees who completed requisite years of service as on
31.03.1992. With respect to the technical staff to which the respondents belong,
they will have the option to switch over to MBAPS within 7 days from the date
of the issuance of these guidelines.
__________
Page11 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
19.It is seen from the records that the respondents did not opt to switch to
that particular scheme within that particular period.
20.With respect to the contention that they were working in super-numery
posts, it is seen that the super-numery posts could often be termed as a shadow
posts namely, a post to which no specific duties are attached. The employees
who are absorbed in a super-numery posts will have to perform the duties of a
post which is vacant. However, care should be taken that it does not create
excess number of staff. This is created with the ultimate aim of absorbing the
employee into regular service.
21.The respondents had been extended with all benefits including GPF,
Pension, Gratuity and Time Scale of Pay as regular employees. The ACP /
MACP scheme was also extended to them. Those schemes were in existence
were they were in employment. After their retirement, they were also extended
with the third ACP / MACP. It is thus seen that all the requisite benefits had
been extended to the respondents.
22.The Tribunal had however held that the respondents were not given
the option to change over to MBAP Scheme and that since they had been
directed to be regularized, there was no distinction between employing them or
__________
Page12 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
accommodating them in super-numery posts or in regular posts since the pay
scale was equal and other service conditions were also equal.
23.We find from the records that one crucial difference between holding a
super-numery post and being accommodated in a sanctioned vacancy is the
promotional avenue which are available to an employee accommodated in a
sanctioned vacancy. To offset that imbalance and in order to alleviate the
hardship of being stagnated in a particular post without promotional avenue,
ACP/MACP schemes had been implemented and there is no quarrel that they
were not implemented to the respondents. It is also to be noted that the MBAP
Scheme was introduced subsequent to the retirement of the respondents by
attaining the age of superannuation. It was brought into effect notionally from
01.01.1987 to existing technical staff. But they would have to give an option to
come into that scheme within a period of 7 days. The implementation of such
scheme to the respondents would be impossible since they were not assessed
and ACRs had not been maintained.
24.We therefore hold that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in directing
implementation of the said schemes to the respondents also. The respondents
had all benefits extended to them during their period of service. They cannot
have grievance over non-implementation of any existing benefit to them.
__________
Page13 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
25.In view of these reasons, we hold that the Writ Petitions should
succeed and accordingly, they are allowed. The directions issued by the
Tribunal in the Original Applications are set aside. No costs. Consequently,
connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.)
23-02-2026
smv
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
__________
Page14 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Union of India,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal
Chennai Bench,
Madras High Court Compound,
Chennai 600 104.
__________
Page15 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU J.
smv
Pre-delivery orders made in
WP Nos.25230 & 32732 of 2024
23-02-2026
__________
Page16 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 05:29:03 pm )
