Home > Recent Judgements >Employees Who Have Different Duties & Are Subject To Different Rules Are Not Entitled To Parity Just Because They Meet The Same Qualifications
August 31, 2024
BACKGROUND
In Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through the Director General and Anr. V. Rajinder Singh and Ors. The current proceeding pertained to a notice issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research to its employees regarding their revised pays in accordance with the suggestions of Central Pay Commission. Such a notice also lent a phrase that “scientist will be eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires a PhD degree in his service career.”
In respect of this letter, the present respondents, who are working on the technical side approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for grant of advanced increments to them. As far as the respondents were concerned, the appellant had taken over the scales of pay recommended for Central Government employees by the Government of India.
Since the orders of the Tribunal were complied with, the appellant is interested in deciding with respect to their representation, but it turned down all the appeals. When the respondents proceeded to the Tribunal challenging this, their submission was endorsed. Under this scenario, the appellant moved to the High Court now Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether technical personnel, who are governed by different rules and perform different duties than scientists, were entitled to the same benefits.
JUDGEMENT
The division bench remarked that the respondents were in totally different roles about the scientists’ core agricultural research and education work.
It would not be possible merely because similar qualification was also obtained by other set of employees, just because they may be working in aid of other employment, the rules governing these employees are different, the duties they perform are also different so they would not be entitled to the benefits which these other employees were getting by the assented power. However, the respondents serve as technical staff and are involved in different tasks.
Study Leave Regulations, 1991 does not entitle scientist to other benefits in other than. This does not mean that spread of those study leave regulations incudes other benefits that will be available to the scientists. The whole idea of study leaves for the purpose of attaining a Ph.D. for the technical personnel was aimed only at upgrading their credentials.” The Court further addressed that technical personnel aspirants ought to possess certain qualifications but that does not mean that after acquiring certain qualifications i.e. PHD, in case of directors and visiting faculty will not be eligible for grant of as two advance increments. To this, the Court stated, they would not be available.
ANALYSIS
Simply put, those employees who may be engaged in auxiliary activities but with a different set of rules and responsibilities obtain that qualification as well, which does not entitle them to the benefits bestowed upon other set of employees by the competent authority.”
Thus, regarding this, the High Court also noted that Article 14 of the Constitution of India was no longer applicable in the present case. Stating so, the Court held that both the Trial Court and the High Court were wrong when equating technical personnel and scientists. Hence the appeal was eventually granted.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
