Holding

The Supreme Court held that the 1989 ICAR pay‑scale revision was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16, and senior scientists were entitled to the higher revised pay scales.

Summary

The case concerned scientists of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in the S‑2 and S‑3 grades who were placed in lower pay scales than junior colleagues after a 1989 notification revised pay structures based solely on total service length (8 years for S‑2, 16 years for S‑3). The senior scientists argued that this violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by denying equal pay for equal work and by being arbitrary. After a writ petition under Article 32 was directed to the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed the claim and the scientists appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the classification was unreasonable and whether senior scientists were entitled to the higher revised scales. It held that while a new pay‑scale scheme may affect some incumbents, it cannot be arbitrary or create a situation where juniors become senior, and the notification was unconstitutional. Consequently, the Court ordered that all scientists who were in service on or before 31 December 1985 receive the higher revised pay scales, and directed payment of arrears within six months.

Issues considered

The revised ICAR pay‑scale notification of 9 March 1989 violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the classification of scientists based solely on total service length, disregarding grade and merit, is arbitrary and unreasonable.
Whether senior scientists are entitled to the higher revised pay scales despite the new scheme.

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985s. Section 19
Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 14, s. Article 16

Subjects

Pay scalesEquality before lawArticles 14 and 16ICARScientistsAdministrative TribunalDiscriminationMerit and seniority

Judgment

A DR. S.M. !LYAS AND ORS.
v.
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 13, 1992
B
[M.H. KANIA CJ., N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

Civil Services :

ICAR-Scientists-S2 and SJ grades-Fixation of pay scales.
c
Constitution of India, 1950 :

Article 14-!.CA.R.-Scientists-f'ay scales-Revision-Disparity in
revised pay scal,,.....Prescribing lower pay scale to senior scientists than their
D junior counterparts-Held not justified.
The Imperial Council of Agricultural Research, a Society estab-
lished under the Societies Registration Act in the year 1929 was redesig-
nated as the Indian Council of Agricultural Research after the advent of
Independence. Till 1965, the !CAR was largely functioning as a coordinat-
E ing agency and apex body for financing research projects, bot with effect
from 1966 the administrative control over the Indian Agriculture Re-
search Institute (!ARI) and other such Institutes were transferred to
!CAR, simultaneously placing the staff of such Institutes at the disposal
of the !CAR. A department of Agricultural Researeh and Education was
set up in the Ministry of Agriculture and the said department came into
F existence on 15.12.1973. The !CAR was fully financed by the Department
of Agricultural Research and Education of the Government of India.

!CAR started an Agricultural Research Service with effect from
•
1.10.1975, and the relevant grades and pay scales as on 31.12.1985 were :

G Grade of Scientist S in pay scale Rs. 550-900,

Scientist S-1 in Rs. 700-1300, Scientist S-2 in

Rs. 1100-1600, and Scientist S-3 in Rs. 1500-2000.

H The Scientists of the !CAR who were earlier covered by the Third
438
S.M. !LYAS v. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 439

Pay Commission pay-scales had been demanding parity in pay-seales with A
the employees of the Agricultural Universities who were also financed by
the !CAR. After persistent demand, the !CAR 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 B
to many of the appellants in a higher seale 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 bad earlier filed a Writ
Petition before this Court under Article 32 challenging the aforesaid C
notification and for other connected reliefs, which was disposed of on 3rd
May, 1990, directing the appellants to approach the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal, and a further declaration was made that the Tribunal shall
treat the petition as a Representative Petition.

Certain clarifications were issued by the !CAR by its letter dated
D
31st March, 1989 and by orders dated 14th June, 1989, 6.11.1989 and
6.7.1990. 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 E
Pay-scale designation pay-scale
1. Scientist, S-2 Rs.1100-50-1600 Scientist Rs. 3000-100-
with service (Senior scale) 3500-125-5000
upto eight
years.
F
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. G
upto 16 years Grade)
4. Scientist, S-3 Rs. 1500-50- Principal Rs. 4500-150-
with service 1800-100-2000 Scientist 5700-200-7300
exceeding 16
years H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A The appellants filed an application under Section 19 of the. Ad-
ministrative 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
B ·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.
C 1500-2000 having completed total service in the ARS as on 31.12.1985
exceeding 16 years bad 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
bad 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.

D 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.
E
It was further submitted by the appellant that in the !CAR there
were two streams for career advancement of the Scientists. The slower
stream is the live 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
F the other Scientists from non-ICAR 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 completely
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
G of the 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
H thereby giving a complete go-bye to merit and competence.
S.M. !LYAS v. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 441

The respondents opposed the appeal by contending that on persist- A
ent 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
B
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. c
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 D
new pay-scales cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily and cannot create a
situation in which the juniors may become senior or vice-versa. [450-8]

2. The appellants are justified in their submis.sion that they were
also entitled to the higher pay-scale on the post of Scientists S-2 as well as E
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 F
the nation and no justification is found as to why the appellants or any
other Sdentists 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 G
to those who have now become entitled to higher pay-scale under the
impugned notification dated 9.3.1989. [453-8-C]

4. The Tribunal itself had found force and justification in grievances
made by the appellants and bad granted six months time to the respon-
dents to take appropriate action. Opportunities were granted to the H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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-AJ

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
B 31.12.1985 earlier to anyone of the Scientists getting benefit of the re.isfd
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 1.1.1986 as given to S-2 and S-3 Scientists under the
C impugned notification. Suitable action in this regard to be taken and the
entire amount to be paid within six months. [453-D-EJ

P.K. Iyer& Ors. v.Union of India& Ors., (1984) 2 SCR200, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2T36 of
D 1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.1990 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 1510 of 1990.

M.K. Ramamurthy, Raj Kumar Mehta and Ms. Mona Chakraborty
E for the Appellants.
R.K. Jain, Arun Jaitley, Mahesh Srivastava, Vishnu Mathur, A.K.
Sikri and Ms. Madho Sikri for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
KASLIWAL, J. The appellants who are Scientists working in various
Institutes under Indian Council of Agricultural Research (in short '[CAR')
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
G 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
H service benefits. When we suggested to learned counsel
S.M. !LYAS v. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH [ KASLIWAL, J.] 443

that the matter should go before the Central Administrative A
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
B
matter can be appropriately considered by the Tribunal for
overcoming the difficulties indicated by Mr. Sanghi, \Ve
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 c
within six months from the date it is filed. This petition is
allowed to be withdrawn."

Jn pursuance ·to the above order dated 3.5.1990 some of the appel-
lants filed an application No. 1510 of 1990 u~der Section 19 of the Ad-
ministrative Tribunals Act before the Central Administrative Tribunal, D
Principal Bench, Delhi. The Tribunal tieated the aforesaid application as
having been filed in representative capacity of S-2 and S-3 Officers of the
!CAR, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme/Court in its order dated
3.5.1990.
E
In order to appreciate the controversy, we shall state the facts in
brief. The Imperial Council of Agricultural Research, a Society estab-
lished under the Societies Registration Act in the year 1929 was redesig-
nated as the Indian Council of Agricultural Research after the advent of
independence. Till 1965, the !CAR was largely functioning as a coordinat-
ing agency and apex body for financing research project. With effect from F
1966, administrative control over the Indian Agricultural Research Institute
(!ARI) and other such Institutes was transferred to !CAR simultaneously
placing the staff of such Institutes at the disposal of the !CAR. A depart-
ment 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 !CAR is fully financed by the Department of Agricultnral Research G
and Education (DARE), Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation,
Government of India. ICAR follows the rules of Government of India
Mutatis Mutandis. The !CAR has heen held to be 'State' within the meaning
of 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]
2SCR 200. H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A The !CAR 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 :-
11
Grades Pay-scales

B 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 !CAR who were earlier covered by the Third
C Pay Commission pay-scales had been demanding parity in pay-scales with
the employees of the Agricultural Universities who were also financed by
the !CAR. After persistent demand, the !CAR 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
D 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 petsons 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
E the pay-scales as revised by the !CAR 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
F
vice in the scale)
ARS as on
'. •
31.12.1985
up to 8 years)
2. Scientist S-2 Rs. 1100-50 Scientist Rs. 3700-125-
G (with total 1600 (Selection 4950-150-5700
serVice in the Grade)
ARS as on
31.12.85
exceeding 8
years)
S.M. !LYAS v. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH.[KASLIWAf~, J.] 445

Scientist S-3 Rs. 1500-60- Scientist Rs. 3700-125- A
(with total ser- 1800-100-2000 (Selection 4950-150-5700
vice in the Grade)
ARS as on
31.12.85 upto
16 years)
B
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 c
31.12.85
exceeding 16
years)"

Certain clarifications were issued to the above notification vide letter D
.,. No. 1-14/87-Per. IV (Vol. lll) 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.
<;
E
The case of the appellants is that according to the impugned notifica-
tion 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
'~ F
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 G
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:- H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A "S. Grade Existing designation New designation
No.
1. Scientist S-2 (with Scientist S-2 Scientist (Senior
total service in Scale)
ARS as on
B 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
c exceeding 8 years)
3. Scientist S-3 (with Scientist S-3 Scientist (Selection
total service in Grade)
ARS as on
31.12.1985
D 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
E exceeding 16 years)
It has been further submitted by the appellaots that in the !CAR
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. In the
F direct selection, the existing Scientists cao also compete with the other
Scientists from non-ICAR 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
G 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
H by the !CAR while revising the pay-scale in which the
S.M. !LYAS v. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH [KASLIWAL, J.j 447

requirement of total length of service was kept same for A
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."

B
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 C
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 D
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 designa-
tion 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 E
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 F
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 categori~s, 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 ~as thus been G
submitted that as a result of the impugned notification juniors and less
meritorious Scientists and who were also drawing lesser basic pay as on
31.12.1985 than the appellants have been placed in higher pay-scales caus-
ing great resentment amongst a large number of Scientists including the
appellants. H
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A The appellants have further illustrated the injustice and arbirtrariness
in the application of the impugned notification in the following manner :-

"ILLUSTRATION - I

DATE OF Scale Scale
B APPOINTMENT
Class II Scien Scien Scien· as as on
(Gaze- -tist -ti st list on 1.1.1986
tied) S-1 S-2 S-3 31.12.85 as per
~
the
c impugn-
ed
Notifi-
cation
Scientist-A 30.4.65 9.10. 1.7.76 1.1.85 Rs .. Rs.
Dr. G.C. 74 1500- 4500-
D 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
E 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.

ILLUSTRA TION-11
F
DA TE OF APPOINTMENT Scale Scale r
Scientist S-1 1 Scientist 1 S-2 as on as per ~

3L12.85 impugn
ed
G Notificat
ion w.e.f.
1.1.86
Scientist -A 1.9.76 1.7.1985 Rs. Rs.
Ms. Pratibha 1100- 3700-
Shukla 1600 5700
H
0

S.M. !LYAS v. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH [KASUWAL, J.] 449

Scieritist-B 22.7.78 Rs. Rs. A
Shri B.S. (joined noq- 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 B
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 .respon-
dents. that on persistent demand of the appellants and other Scientists for C
giving them better pay-scales than those recommended by the Fourth Pay
Commission, the Governffient 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 D
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 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 E
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: F
5700. Thus, prescribing the aforesaid pay-scales on the pattern of UGC as
per the demand of the Scientists themselves, the above fJXation of pay-
scales is perfectly valid and proper. It has been further submitted that
injustll;e do~e to ·some of the incumbents i~ 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 pat- G
tern 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. H
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 ad-
vantageous position than others, but at the same time the granting of new
B 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 !CAR had made a grievance for the revision of
their pay-scales and the Government being satisfied with their grievanas
had appointed various expert Committees such as, M.V. Rao Committee,
N.G.P. Rao Committee, Menon Committee and G.V.R. Rao Committee
C for improvement of service conditions of the Scientists working in the
!CAR. 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 recom-
mended the application of the UGC Scales to the ARS Scientists. So far
D 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 !CAR. The respon-
iE dents 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 !CAR has the role of
UGC in agricultural education recommended that the !CAR being an apex
organisation in the country for agricultural education, research and exten-
sion should have the pay-scales at least at par with the State Agricultural
F 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 !CAR 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
G 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 the impugned notification is a dying cadre. Now, so far as
Scientist S-1 is concerned, he has been given the revised pay-scale of Rs.
H 2200-4000 and there is no controversy about it. The controversy is about
S.M. !LYAS v. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH [KASLIWAL, J.] 451

Scientists S-2 and S,3. Ali Scientists S-2 were in the same pay-scale of Rs. A
I 1100-1600 prior to the introduction of the revised pay-scales by the im-
pugned 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 B
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 C
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. D
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 he 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 E
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 Arnn Jaitley Leaned senior counsel appearing for the ICAR F
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. G
4500-7300. Similarly, in the case of the incumbents on the post of Scientist
S-2 Shri B.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 Scientist 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 submis- H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A ·sion 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
B · 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
c that certain anomalies have been created 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 weightage for a period of service
renqered by th~ for placement in the higher scale as on
1.1.1986. Theyhave also stated that they are devising means
D
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 prin-
ciple of length of service in the ARS irrespective of the
grades in which the officers were hitherto working a large
E 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 •
F 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
G 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 months' time
H to the respondents to take appropriate action.

-.
S.M. !LYAS v. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH [KASLIWAL. J.) 453

We had also granted opportunities to the respondents to come with A
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 redr~ssing the grievances of the appellants. The appellants arc
Scientists who are rendering great service to the nation and we find no B
justification as to why the appellants or any other Scientists in !CAR 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 C
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 D
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 revised pay-scales shall be given from 1.1.1986 as given to S-2
and S-3 Scientists under the impugned notification. The respondents are E
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 circumstan-
ces of the casei we pass no order as to costs.

N.V.K. Appeal allowed.