Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr.Satya Pal And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 20 February, 2014
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Arun Palli
CWP No.10315-CAT of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10315-CAT of 2001 (O & M)
Date of Decision:20.02.2014
Dr.Satya Pal and others
....petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others
.....respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.P.S.Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioners
Ms.Anju Arora, Standing Counsel
for respondent No.1-Union of India
Mr.Aman Chaudhary, Advocate
for respondents No.3 and 4
***
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):
Three petitioners before us were recruited to the post of Field/Farm Technician (Veterinary) (T-4), with the National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal/respondent No.4, under the aegis of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi/respondent No.3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the non-implementation of the 4th Pay Commission Recommendations qua their pay scale.
The petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, which dismissed their OA vide impugned order dated 28.03.2001, which is sought to be assailed in the present petition.Verma Neenu
2014.02.26 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10315-CAT of 2001 2
Learned counsel for the petitioners makes the following submissions:
1. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research, though a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, is under the administrative and financial control of the Ministry of Agriculture, Union of India and the service and financial rules framed by the Government of the India, are to apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Society, in terms of bye-law 30(a).
2. That, as a matter of fact, the 4th Pay Commission Recommendations were adopted by the ICAR.
3. The petitioners possess a decree in Veterinary Science and in terms of the 4th Pay Commission Recommendations, the recommended pay scale for persons possessing such a minimum qualification was of ` 2000-60-
2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500. This is what the petitioners are claiming as relief.
4. In an identical situation, the pay scale was granted and thereafter withdrawn and the aggrieved party Dr.Anil Kumar Gupta filed OA No.1317 of 1991, challenging the withdrawal, which was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, vide order dated 26.05.1998 and that order is stated to have been upheld right till the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits as under:
(i) The ICAR is an independent body being a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission do not, ipso facto, apply. This is stated to be apparent from bye-law 30(a) which reads as under:
30.(a) Except in regard to matters for which specific Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10315-CAT of 2001 3 provision has been made in the Rules, Bye-Laws, Regulations or Orders made or issued by the Society, the service and financial Rules framed by the Government of India and such other rules and orders issued by the Government of India from time to time shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the society in regard to matters concerning their service conditions. "Emphasis supplied)
(ii)As a matter of fact, the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission were not applied, mutatis mutandis.
(iii)The requisite qualifications to the post occupied by the petitioners was not only a degree in veterinary science but a diploma or a degree in veterinary science and thus it would not be possible to carve out two pay scales for the same posts depending on the qualifications.
(iv)The judgment in Anil Kumar Gupta's case (supra) was distinguishable because it proceeded on an assumption of the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission having been accepted by ICAR which was factually incorrect as noticed in the impugned order.
(v)In Anil Kumar Gupta's case, the SLP was not dismissed but on the other hand the matter was remanded for consideration to the Division Bench which vide its order dated 03.12.1999 opined that since the relief order/circular had not been brought to the notice of the CAT, and had been relied upon before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for the first time, the respondents cannot be permitted to rely on the same.
On examination of the matter and the impugned order, it emerges that though service and financial rules framed by Government of India were applicable to ICAR mutatis mutandis, but there was an exception carved to it qua the matters for which specific provisions were Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10315-CAT of 2001 4 made in the rules bye-laws, regulations or orders, undisputedly. ICAR is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is not the department of the Government. As to how the controversy was dealt with is apparent from the memorandum dated 17.10.1991 (Annexure P-9) which reads as under:
In the light of orders dated 04.09.1991 (copy enclosed) passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 455/HR/90, Dr. Satya Pal, Technical Officer (T-
5) is hereby informed that his representation dated 05.02.1990 has been examined carefully by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. In the ICAR system the Technical Service has got three categories namely Category-I, Category-II and Category-III. Dr. Satya Pal was recruited in T-4 which belongs to category-II of the Technical Service. The following comprises the Category-
II post in the Technical Services:
Grade T-II-3 Rs. 425-700 (Pre-revised) T-4 Rs. 550-900 (--do--) T-5 Rs. 650-1200 (--do--) As per the Technical Service Rules, the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of T-4 under Category-II of Field Technician are as under:
i) Three years diploma/Bachelor's degree in the relevant field;
ii) Three years experience in the relevant field for Diploma Holders.
The Technical Services under the ICAR are Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10315-CAT of 2001 5 quite different from the grade of Vety. Officers obtaining in the other departments of the Govt. of India. The ICAR Technical Officers also have the system of merit promotion/advance increments on the basis of their assessment after every five years. In accordance with these rules, Dr. Satya Pal has already been promoted to T-5.
In the circumstances of the cases, it has not been found possible for the ICAR to accept the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission because of the following reasons:
i) The Fourth Pay Commission had linked the grant of pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 with the possession of minimum qualifications B.V.Sc. for the post of Vety.
Officer. Under the ICAR Rules regulating the Technical Service are not linked with the qualifications and hence the recommendation is not applicable to ICAR Technical Personnel.
ii) Technical Personal in ICAR are entitled to promotion and advance increments on the basis of their assessment after every five years. These benefits are not availed to Veterinary Officerse. Hence, Technical Personnel in ICAR are not entitled to be equated with Veterinary Officers.
iii)The scope and nature of the technical Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10315-CAT of 2001 6 service in the ICAR are quite distinct from the scope and nature of the services of Veterinary Officers. The Technical Officer in ICAR have been assigned to perform a different role than that envisaged by the Fourth Pay Commission for Veterinary Officers.
Accordingly, the ICAR has accepted the revised separate scales of pay of T-II-3, T-4 and T-5 as recommended by the Pay Commission. In the circumstances, it will not be possible to revise the scale of pay of Dr. Satya Pal to Rs. 2000-3500 as requested by him.
Receipt of this memorandum may be acknowledged by him in the enclosed form.
A reading of the aforesaid shows that 4th Pay Commission Recommendations were not mutatis mutandis applied and there are other benefits available to persons like the petitioner. Once this is so, the very edifice of the case of the petitioner based on the application of the 4th Pay Commission Recommendations would disappear.
There is also a rationale for the view adopted by the Tribunal that the judgment in Anil Kumar Gupta's case (supra) was a result of the failure on the part of the respondents to bring to the notice of the judicial forums the relevant circular at the relevant time, which was sought to be subsequently relied upon.It is in these circumstances that the Division Bench of Delhi High Court did not consider it appropriate to interfere with the order at that stage based on the circular relied upon for the first time.
The observations in the impugned order are as under: Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10315-CAT of 2001 7
In the present case we are of the view that judgement in Dr. A.K. Gupta's case (Supra) cannot be treated as a binding precedent as (i) it proceeds on a presumption of the recommendations of 4th Pay Commission as per notification dated 13.09.1986 having been accepted by ICAR and (ii) because the decision of ICAR of accept only the revised pay scales from the existing pay scales as circulated through letter dated 08.10.1986 (R-8) was never brought to the notice of the bench. These two facts if brought to their notice would have made a sea change in the view being taken. In the case of S. Nagrajan Vs. State of Karnataka (1993) 5 SLR, Page-1, P.I. Koya Vs. Direction Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute and other (1996) 33 ATC, Page-783, it was held that an incorrect precedent is not binding on the other courts. We can cite with advantage at this stage another judgment reported as 1995 SCC (L&S), 36 State of Maharashtra Vs. Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Grovers Marketing Federation Employees Union, which was a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that a precedent would not be applicable if the earlier case was decided on wrong facts. Such a decision can be treated as per incuriam.
The conclusions of the Tribunal, in view of the aforesaid facts, which are unexceptional are as under:
We also take notice of the judgment in the case of ICAR & another V/s. P.K. Suryanarayan & Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10315-CAT of 2001 8 others JT 1997 (7) SC Page-437 which is a judgment on similar premises that wrong benefit given to one through a judgment cannot be a binding precedent.
Taking note of the decision of the ICAR, only to accept the revised pay scales in place of the existing pay scales and nothing having been shown to us wherein they may have taken a decision to accept the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission or the notification issued by the Government of India linking the post with the minimum educational qualification provided for grant of particular pay scale we cannot accept the claim made by the applicants in the present case.
Beyond what is given in Annexure-I issued by ICAR, regarding pay scales circulated through Annexure R-8 we have not been shown any decision of the ICAR having accepted the decision of the Government of India regarding the recommendations of the Pay Commission. We, thus, shall have to hold that the recommendations regarding persons possessing the degree of B.V.Sc. & A.H. which was given under the heading of 'Veterinary Officers' does not apply to the category of applicants. We may notice that the benefit of this revised pay scale as sought by the petitioner has in fact been granted to the petitioner but much subsequently in accordance with old norms of the ICAR and thus today the only question was whether this scale ought to have been applied to the petitioners from an earlier date.Verma Neenu
2014.02.26 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10315-CAT of 2001 9
We are thus, of the view that no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE 20.02.2014 neenu (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE Verma Neenu 2014.02.26 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh