Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on August 22, 2024 said that an institution may provide incentives to one category of employees for acquiring higher qualifications but that would not entitle other category of staff to claim similar benefits.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal said that in any institution incentives may be given to a particular category of employees to get higher qualifications during service, considering their job requirements. 

"Merely because different set of employees, who may be working in aid but governed by different set of rules and having different duties to discharge also obtain that qualification, will not entitle them to the benefits which were extended to different set of employees by the competent authority. In the said sequel of facts, Article 14 of the Constitution of India will not have any application," the bench said.

The court allowed an appeal filed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research against the orders by the Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The CAT had directed the appellant to extend the benefit of 1999 scheme of two advance increments available for scientists for obtaining PhD degree, to technical staff, the respondents, too.

The ICAR said that it constituted two services, namely Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Technical Service (TS) on October 01,1975, which were governed by their independent sets of rules having different cadres and different promotional avenues.

It also said that the scientists belonging to Agricultural Research Service were getting UGC pay scales with effect from January 01,1986. The benefit of two advance increments for acquiring Ph D qualification was part of their pay package.

Similar benefit was not extended to the technical personnel. For technical personnel, the revised scales as recommended by the Government of India for Central Government employees had been adopted, it said.

The respondents, on their part, did not deny that they were governed by different set of rules, had their own channel of promotion, and different qualifications prescribed for recruitment. 

The duties assigned to them were also different as compared to the scientists, who were engaged in core work of agricultural research and education whereas the respondents being technical personnel provide support in different areas. 

"Merely because Study Leave Regulations, 1991 were extended to technical personnel, this would not entitle them to other benefits which are available to the scientists. The idea of grant of study leave for pursuing Ph D to the technical personnel was only to enable them to improve their qualifications," the bench said.

The court thus held, "Merely after having Ph D qualification, the technical personnel will not become eligible for grant of two advance increments when the same has not been recommended for them."

The bench accordingly declared that the tribunal and high court had erred by equating technical personnel and scientists and granting respondents advance increments to which they were not entitled to. 

The court also said that the argument raised by the respondents that after obtaining the Ph D qualification, the technical staff were entitled to be considered for lateral entry into the scientist positions was also to be noticed and rejected as the additional qualification merely made them eligible for the higher post in the different cadre and did not grant them benefits, which were attached to the higher post in a different cadre. 

"Similar is the position regarding Entry 66 in List I to the 7th Schedule attached to the Constitution of India. The contents of the Entries in 7th Schedule only prescribe limits of the powers of the Parliament or the State Legislature to enact laws," the bench said.

The court finally allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the high court and the tribunal.

Case Title: Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through The Director General And Anr Vs Rajinder Singh And Ors