Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the CAT's order for regularisation but upheld the award that the respondent is entitled to receive Rs. 3,737 per month as Scientist Fellow for the full three‑year term and for the intervening period, with interest.

Summary

Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain served as a Pool Officer under the Scientists' Pool Scheme for three years with a salary of Rs. 3,737 per month. After the scheme expired, he was appointed as a Scientist Fellow under the Quick Hire Scheme on a contract not exceeding three years, initially for one year and later extended by six months, with a salary of Rs. 3,400 per month. He challenged the contract salary, the denial of further extension, and sought regularisation and arrears for the period between the two appointments. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ordered that he be paid Rs. 3,737 per month for the entire three‑year contract and for the intervening period, and directed his regularisation as a regular employee. The Supreme Court set aside the regularisation direction but upheld the salary award, granting him Rs. 3,737 per month for the full contract term and the gap period, with interest, and allowed the appeal in part.

Issues considered

The validity of the CAT's direction to regularise the respondent's services as a Scientist Fellow.
Whether the respondent is entitled to the higher salary of Rs. 3,737 per month under the Quick Hire Scheme.
Whether the respondent is entitled to salary for the period between the expiry of his Pool Officer appointment and his re‑engagement as Scientist Fellow.
The lawfulness of extending the contract for only six months when the scheme provides for year‑to‑year extensions up to three years.
The propriety of the selection committee's salary recommendation of Rs. 3,400 per month.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

service lawcontract appointmentquick hire schemesalary fixationregularisationCentral Administrative Tribunalequalityextension of contractscientists pool scheme

Judgment

COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND ORS. A
v.
DR. AJAY KUMAR JAIN

MARCH 31, 2000

[D.P. WADHWA AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] B

Service Law-Period of Extension of service-Fixation. of-Arbitrari-
ness-A few months after the expiry of his tenure as Pool Officer under the
Scientists' Pool Scheme, the respondent being appointed as Scientist Fellow
under the "Scheme of Quick Recruitment of Scientists (Fellows) for Major c
Projects".-("Quick Hire Scheme")-Such appointment on contract for a
period not exceeding three years and tenninable by a notice of three months
from either side-Initial appointment of the respondent for one year-
Subsequent extension of the Contract for a further period of Six months only-
Legality of-Held, this action of the appellants on the face of it seems to be
rather arbitrary-Such extension could not be held to mean an exercise of the D
employer's option to tenninate the services by three months notice-In the
circumstances, Tribunal was right in holding that the respondent would have
continued for a full tenn of three years under the Quick Hire Scheme and that
the respondent was entitled to emoluments for a period of three years from the
dale of his appointment as Scientist Fellow under the saidscheme-Consti- E
tution of India, I950-Article I4.

Regularisation-Entitlement to-Tribunal directing the appellants to put
the respondent on duty as Scientist Fellow as if he was not turned out on the
basis oftime limit and to regularise his services-Tenability of-Held, appoint-
ment <is Scientist Fellow under the Quick Hire Sche_me cannot be understood F
-- to mean regular appointment under the relevant recruitment rules applicable to
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research or to bodies under its control-
Employment under the QuickHire Scheme was on contract and a mere place-
ment as Scientist Fellow and not appointment in the sense in which this tenn
is used in service law. G
Fixation of the salary of the respondent as Scientist Fellow under Quick
Hire Scheme at Rs. 3400-His salary as Pool Officer under the Scientists' Pool
Scheme was Rs. 3737-By Protection-Justification of-Held, when Quick
Hire Scheme envisaged an emolument between rupees three to four thousand,
there does not appear to be any sound reason for the Selection Committee to H
839
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A recommend pay of the respondent @Rs. 3400 and not at Rs. 3737-Decision
of the Selection Committee in recommending lower emoluments being not
informed with proper reason-Direction of the Tribunal that the respondent be
paid @ Rs. 3737 per month while working as Scientist Fellow under the Quick
Hire Scheme, upheld.

B Sala1y-Arrears of-Respondent continuing to work as Pool Officer
under the Scientists' Pool Scheme despite expiry of his fixed period 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-
Tribunal holding that the respondent was entitled to emoluments for such
c period when his appointment as Pool Officer ceased till his subsequent engage-
ment as Scientist Fellow-Justifiability of-Held, award of emoluments for
such period appears to be rather in-egular-However, order of the Tribunal in
this regard not disturbed being outside the scope of leave granted.

A Scientists' Pool Scheme was formulated by the Central Govern-
D ment in consultation with the appellant-Council of Scientific and Indus-
trial Research, envisaging a Pool for temporary placement of well quali-
fied Indian scientists and technologists returning from abroad until they
were absorbed in suitable posts on more· or less permanent basis. The
respondent was given placement as Pool Officer. The Maximum period
E for which a person could be appointed as Pool Officer was three years.

Af~er the expiry of the stipulated term of three years as a Pool
Officer, the respondent was selected for appointment under "Scheme of
Quick Recruitment of Scientists (Fellows) for Major Projects", ("Quick
Hire Scheme") after a gap of few months. The ~ppointment under the said
F Scheme was to be on contract for a period not exceeding three years,
which could be terminated by notice of three months from either side or
three months' emoluments in lieu thereof. The said scheme prescribed
different levels of emoluments depending upon the qualification etc. of the
scientist to be appointed. Whereas as a Pool Officer, the respondent was
being paid emoluments of Rs. 3737 per months, his salary as Scientist
G Fell~w under Quick Hire Scheme was fixed at Rs. 3400 per month. Re-
quest of the respondent seeking protection of his salary which he was
getting earlier as Pool Officer was not acceded to. His appointment under
Quick Hire Scheme was for one year at the first instance and was subse-
quently extended for a further period of six months. Representation of the
H respondent for further extension of his tenure was rejected.
C.S.l.R. v. DR. A.K. JAIN 841
The respondent, then, approached the Central Administrative Tri- A
bunal challenging firstly, the said office memorandum by which his repre-
sentation for further l!xtension of his tenure was rejected secondly, rejec-
tion of his request for being paid at the same rate at which he was drawing
as Pool Officer. Respot';dent further prayed that he be reinstated with full
arrears of salary and other perquisites and consequential benefits. He also
B
sought payment of his salary for the period when his appointment as Pool
Officer ceased and till his subsequent engagement as Scientist Fellow. The
said OA filed by respondent was allowed by the Tribunal. Hence, the
present appeal.

On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that purpose of the c
two schemes i.e. Scientists' Pool Scheme and Quick Hire Scheme were
altogether different. Under the Pool Scheme, a scientist was retained to
check the brain-drain from India and in the meanwhile to secure alterna-
tive job. The purpose of Quick Hire Scheme was to give quick appoint-
ment to a Scientist on contract basis which was not to exceed three years
period. Since the purpose of both the schemes was different, the respond-
D
ent could not have asked for emoluments under the Quick Hire Scheme at
the same rate as he was getting as Pool Officer.

Partly allowing the appeal, this Court
E
HELD : 1. The impugned judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal whereby it directed the appellant<; 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 the full length of service
rendered by him with continuity of service and seniority, is set aside. 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 the date of his appointment for
a period of three years and further the respondent will also be entitled to
F

emoluments at this rate for the period when his appointment as Pool
Officer ceased and till his subsequent engagement as Scientist Fellow. G
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. [857-G-H]

2. The direction of the Tribunal to the appellants to regularise the
services of the respondent docs not appear to be correct. No doubt, Scien- H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 2 S.C.R.
A tists' Pool Scheme and QuickHiI'.e 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 Council of Scientific and Indus-
trial Research or any of its bodies the scientists have to be governed by the
relevant service rules as applicable. Employment under the Quick Hire
B
J
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 was not appointed under those Rules. An appointment under the
Quick Hire Scheme cannot he equated with regular appointment as peJ.'. the
relevant recruitment rules of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
C against a sanctioned post. To be eligible for regularisation, the respondent
had to come within the relevant rules. A Pool Officer or a S<jientist Fellow
under the Quick Hipe Scheme cannot continue to hold on to the job till
superannuation. Appointment as Scientist Fellow under the Quick Hire
Scheme cannot be understood to mean regular appointment under the rel-
D evant recruitment rules applicable to CSIR or to bodies under its control.
'J\he term 'appointment' has been only loosely used. It is mere placement as
SHentist Fellow and not appointment in the sense in which this term is used
in service law. [855-F -H; 856-A-D]

Director, Institute of Management Developme.nt, U.P. v. Smt Pushpa
E Srivastava, JT (1992) 4 SC 489 =(1992] 4 SCC 33, relied on.

3. Both the schemes viz. Scientists' Pool Scheme and Quick Hire
Scheme serve twin proposes. Highly qualified Indian scientists technolo-
gists returning from abroad get temporary placement until they are ab-
sorbed in suitable post on more or less permanent basis. After the expiry
F
of his tenure as Pool Officer, the respondent was selected and appointed as
Scientist Fellow under the Quick Hire Scheme by duly constituted Selec-
tion 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.
G His representation for further extension was turned down. This action of
the appellants on the face of it seems to be rather arbitrary and it appears
that in this respect they have meted out shabby treatment to the respond-
ent, a scientist. In the circu~stances, therefore, Tribunal is right in hold-
ing that the respondent would have continued for a full term of three -
H years under the Quick Hire Scheme. (854-H; 855-B-E]
C.S.l.R. v. DR. A.K. JAIN [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 843
4. When Quick Hire Scheme envisaged an emolument between rupees A
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, the rate at which he was drawing as Pool Officer.
There is no clue as to what weighed with the Selection Committee to
recommend lower emoluments. The decision of the Selection Committee is
not informed with proper reason. Tribunal is, therefore, right in directing
B
that the respondent be paid @ Rs. 3,737 per month while working as
Scientist Fellow underthe Quick Hire Scheme. [853-F-G]

5. The respondent, after the expiry of his fixed period continued to
work as Pool Officer in the hope of getting extension till he was selected c
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. Yet the Tribunal awarded him
emoluments for that period which appears to be rather irregular. How·
ever, leave being granted only on a limited question Order of the Tribunal
in this regard shall not be disturbed. [857-D-E] D

Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and Others, (1975) 1 SCC 485,
referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6806 of 1995.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.94 of the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal, Lucknow in O.A. No. 788 of 1993.

Soli J. Sorabjee, Attomey General, P.S. Misra, Rakesh Dwivedi, V.K.
Rao, Ms. Madhu Sikri, A.K. Sikri, Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Y.S. Lohit, Ms.
Mirdula Ray Bhardw~j. Vishnu Sharma, U. Mishra, Ms. lndu Malhotra, Ms. F
Madhu Sweta, V.K. Rao, Piyush Sharma, Ms. Geetanjaji Goel, S. Chandra
Shekhar, Vishwajit Singh, N.S. Gahlot, R.K. Singh, S.D. Mishra, Shashindra
Tripathi, Anil Sinha and Praveen Chaturvedi for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by
G
D.P. WADHWA, J. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated
May 24, 1994 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Lucknow Bench)
. ('CAT' for sho1t). The respondent, a Scientist, had filed Original Application
(OA No. 788of1993) seeking vru.ious reliefs. His petition was allowed by the
CAT giving the following directions: - H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A "Accordingly, we hereby quash the Office Memorandwn dated
8.9.93 (Annexure 11 to the petition). As regards Office Memorandwn
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
B
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-engage-
ment as Fellow Scientist and to continue to pay the revised pay scale
c as shown in the table of the scale issued by the CSIR vide its Office
Memorandwn 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
D
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 respondent is
E the Director of Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow (CDRI), a body
under the control of CSIR. Third respondent is the Senior Controller of
Administration in the CORL At the outset it was pointed by Mr. Soli J.
Sorabjee, learned Attorney General that in Sabhajit Tewary v. 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 Aiticle 12 of the Constitution.
F However, whether CSIR is authority or not is not relevant for the putpose of
decision of this appeal.

When the appellant sought leave to appeal to this Court under Article
136 of the Constitlition from the judgment of the CAT this Court issued notice
G 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
H date of his appointment.
C.S.I.R. v. DR. A.K. JAIN [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 845
Issue notice returnable on 17 .2.95 limited to this question stating A
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 B
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. c
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 D
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: -

"I. A Pool shall be constituted in the manner provided hereafter for
E
a temporary placement of well-qualified Indian scientists and tech-
nologists 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.
F

Persons appointed to the Pool will be attached to a Government
department or a State Industrial enterprise, national Laboratory,
G
university or scientific institution, or given some other work depend-
ing on the requirement and their qualifications and experience.
Officers of the pool may also be seconded to a Government Depart-
ment or other organisations including industrial establishments in the
private sector. When a person is thus seconded to some department H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 2 S.C.R.
A 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 : ........... .

B 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.

c 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................... .

D 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."
E
The respondent was given pl~cement 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
F
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
G
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
H as admissible to a temporary Class I Officer of the CSIR for a
C.S.I.R. v. DR. A.K. JAIN [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 847
period of two year( s) or till you obtain a temporary or permanent A
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
B
year.

3. Please intimate your acceptance and return all the enclosed
forms duly filled in to this office.
c
4. In case you accept the offer, you will be placed in a Govern-
ment/quasi Government organisation in India. As far as possi-
ble, efforts will be made to match your professional specialisa-
tion with the objectives and activities of the organisation of your
placement. You may also contact such organisations to arrange
your placement. D

5. In all matters of service you will be governed by rules appli-
cable to temporary Class I Officer of the Council of Scientific
and Industrial Research.
E
6. You will take oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India in
the form enclosed (Annexure II).

7. Dming your stay in the Pool you will be under the administra-
tive control of the Head of the Organisation where you are
placed for routine administrative matters while for all other F
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
G
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 tl1e /'

grant through the Head of the Department of the organisation
to which you are attached as a Pool Officer. H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 2 S.C.R.
A 10. Since the Scientists Pool provides temporary employment sup-
port, 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
B ·your work reports, sincere efforts made by you to secure a
regular fmployment and a satisfactory report from the organi-
sation of your placement. The prescribed forms for this purpose
will be supplied to you in due course.

c 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.

D 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
E 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
p 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
G appointed as Pool Officer is three years which in the case of the respondent
expired on July 31, 1991. At tl1at 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").
H Under this scheme the Director constitutes a committee with himself as
C.S.I.R. v. DR. A.K. JAIN [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 849
Chairman for selection of scientists. A
This Quick Hire Scheme prescribes different levels of emoluments
depending upon the qualifications etc. of the Scientist, who is to be appointed.
TI1e 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 B
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 FeUow
c
of CDRI by appointment letter dated March 17, 1992. The Selection Commit-
tee 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: - D
"Sir,

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

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,
G
Yours faithfully,

Sd/-
(DR. AJAY K. JAIN)
Scientist Fellow of DRI
Division of Toxicology" H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B
With reference to his application dated 7th May, 1992 Dr. Ajay
Kumar Jain, Scientist Fellow is informed that the Selection Commit-
tee recommended his appointment as Scientist Fellow on a consoli-
dated salary of Rs.3400/- p.m. in the range of Rs.3000-4000 under
c 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 ofRs.3737/- drawn by
him as Pool Officer can not be acceded to."
D
While respondent was appointed as Scientist Fellow of CDRI under Quick
Hire Scheme with effect from Marc~ 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
E March 17, 1993. Representation of the respondent for extension of his tenure
was r~jected and the rejection was communicated to him by Office Memoran-
dum dated September 8, 1993 as under: -

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

F 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."

G The respondent approached the CAT challenging the Office Memorandum
dated September 8, 1993 and also rejection of his request forbeing 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
H perquisites and consequential benefits. Respondent also sought payment of ~s
C.S.I.R. v. DR. A.K. JAIN [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 851
salary for the period from August 1, 1991 when the appoiritment as Pool A
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 B
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
c
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 D
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 rules. She was also advised
by the said Office Memorandum to apply against the post as and when E
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 p
issuing various directions as under:-

"20. Considering therefore, the conspectus of the case in the back-
ground 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:
G

(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 t11is
period in an appropriate manner. H
[2000] 2 S.C.R.

--
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A (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. /

(iii) The respondents shall formulate a scheme for absorption of
scientific researchers at suitable levels in respect of those who
B 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
c Scientific Researchers at suitable levels in respect of those who have
put in long yeai·s 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 purpos~s of
D 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
E 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 fo1mulation of the scheme or the amendment of
the service rules as the case may be, in pursuance of the observations
F 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: -
G
"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 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
H working on contract basis. The special leave petition is disposed of."
C.S.l.R. v. DR. A.K. JAJN [D.P. WADHWA, J.) 853
We do not think that decision of the CAT in the case of Pratibha Misra A
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.
B
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 c
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
D
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 E
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 F
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 info1med with proper reason. CAT is, therefore, right in
G
directing that the respondent be paid @ Rs.3,737 per month while working as
Scientist Fellow under the Quick Hire Scheme.

Appointm~~t 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 info1med that H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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
c thereof). The contract cannot be extended beyond the above maxi-
mum period."

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

D "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.

E 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
F 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
G 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
H absorbed in suitable post on more or less permanent basis. Nation also gains
C.S.l.R. v. DR. A.K. JAIN [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 855
from the experience'and knowledge of the scientists who have been working A
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 B
await them in the long run. The respondent was working as Pos·t 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

L 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
c
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 D
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 E
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
regularise the services of the respondent which does not appear to be con-ect.
I
No doubt, Scientists Pool Scheme and Quick Hire Scheme provided a sort
of cushion to the scientists returning from abroad and under the circum- p
stances 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 G
respondent was not governed by CSIR Service Rules, 1994 for recruitment
of Scientific, Technical and Snppmt 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 recmitment mies of
CSIR against a sanctioned post. To be eligible for regularisation, the H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c 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
D 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 Dime.tor, Institute of Management Devel-
E opment, U.P. v. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava, IT (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 of 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
F
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
G of tliree months. On appeal filed in this Court, both the parties referred to
relevant rules governi~g service conditions of the employees of the appellant
in support of their respective contentions. Appellant referred to the office
letter dated Janua1y 9, I 990 by which the respondent was appointed which
stated that "with effect from tl1e date of joining Smt. Pushpa Rani Srivastava
H is appointed on a consolidated fixed pay of Rs.2400/- per month on contract
C.S.I.R. v. DR. A.K. JAIN [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 857
basis for a period of six months in the Institute. The appointment of Smt. A
Srivasvata is purely on ad hoc basis and.is te1minable 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. TI1e
appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and was..terminable without any
notice. After examining the various contentions this Court 9eld that the B
directions given by the High Court were not valid. It said that the appoint-
ment 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.
c
The Assistant Director of the CDIR and Scientist-In-Charge appreci-
ated the work of the respondent and recommended for the regularisation of
his services and these recommendations did merit consideration. TI1e re-
spondent, 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 D
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 E
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 shJll not, therefore, disturb ihe order of the CAT that the
respondent to be paid emoluments for the period from July 31, 1991 tc:i
F
March 17, 1992 @ Rs.3,737/- per month.

We, therefore, set aside .the impugned judgment of the.Central Admin-
istrative 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 G
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 H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 2 S.C.R.
A 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 en the delayed payments. Appellants shall be entitled to deduct the
amount already paid to the respondent. The arrears shall be paid within a
B period of eight weeks from today.

The appeal is partly allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to
costs.

M.P.. Appeal partly allowed.

0