Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
F Mahesh vs Ayush on 18 February, 2026
1 of 34
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 310/0921 of 2021
DATED WEDNESDAY, THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)
BETWEEN:
1. F. Mahesh (M/29 years),
S/o. A. Francis,
Lab Technician
Department of Biochemistry
Siddha Central Research Institute,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai 600 106;
2. A Thilagam, (F/34 years),
D/o. M.S. Arumugam
Lab Technician,
Department of Biochemistry,
Siddha Central Research Institute,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai 600 106;
3. A. Karthika, (F, 31 years)
W/o. Soundaraj,
Lab Technician,
Siddha Clinical Research unit, (CCRS)
Govt siddha hospital campus.
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli-627002;
4. K.Bhavani, (F/32 years),
W/o. Niwas Chakaravathi,
Lab Technician,
Department of Pharmacology,
2 of 34
Siddha Central Research Institute,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai 600 106
5. D. Padmini, (F/32 years)
D/o. Duraisamy,
Lab Technician,
Department of Biochemistry
Siddha Central Research Institute
Arumbakkam
Chennai- 600 106. .. Applicants
(Advocate: M/s. M. Ravi)
Versus
1. Union of India
represented by The Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Ayush,
Ayush Bhawan, B Block, GPO Complex, IMA,
New Delhi-110023;
2. The Central Council for Research in Siddha
represented by Director General,
Ministry of AYUSH
Government of India
SCRI Building
Anna Government Hospital campus
Arumbakkam,
Chennai- 600 106 ........ Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC)
CAV ON : 22.01.2026
3 of 34
ORDER
(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J) Applicants have filed this OA seeking to quash the proceedings F. No.2- 77/2017-CCRS/Estt. dated 03/09/2020 issued by the 2 nd Respondent and to direct the Respondents herein to re-designate their post as Medical Lab Technologist and upgrade the pay scale from Pay Band-1 to Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs 4200/- with effect from date of initial appointment as done in the case of National Institute of Siddha.
2. Briefly, the case of the applicants is that they were appointed to the Group 'C' posts of Lab Technician pursuant to the Notification/Advertisement No.03/2015 issued by the 2nd Respondent. The name of the post, scale of pay, number of vacancies, age, education and other qualifications as advertised in the above said notification are as under: -
Name of the Post : Lab Technician
Scale of pay : (PBI) Rs.5200-20200 + GP Rs.2400
No. of Vacancies : 11 (UR-7, SC-2, ST-2)
Age : 25 years and below
Educational and other Qualifications:
Essential:
(a) Degree (10+2+3 Pattern) in Science in concerned discipline (Chemistry/ Bio-Chemistry/MLT/Botany)/Degree in Pharmacology or B. Pharm from a recognised university;
4 of 34
(b) One year experience in laboratory technology in a lab of a recognised Hospital/Institution;
OR
(a) 12th (10+2) class or equivalent with science subject from a recognized Board)/University;
(b) Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology of minimum one year duration from a recognised University/ Institution;
(c) Two years Experience in a laboratory of recognised Hospital/ Institution.
3. All five applicants herein had participated in the written test held on 25/06/2016 and were selected on the basis of their meritorious performance. They were among 13 persons selected for the posts and were issued appointment order on 19/08/2016 for the said post of Lab Technician and were all sanctioned the same scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200+Rs.2400. They have continued their service in the said post till date.
4. While the facts remain so, the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings in F. No.2- 77/2018-CCRS/ Estt dated 03/09/2020 has issued order regarding revision of recruitment rules and upgradation of pay scales of laboratory staff in CCRS. The existing recruitment rules for the post of Lab Assistant/ Lab Technician were declared 5 of 34 to have been superseded by revised recruitment rules and upgradation of pay scale was declared as effective from 27/01/2020. In the said proceedings, it has been mentioned that in the case of Lab Technician, necessary action may be initiated for revising the designation and pay scale of existing Lab Technician who are in possession of essential educational qualification and experience stipulated in the revised RRs, i.e., bachelor's degree in medical laboratory science with 2 years relevant experience as Medical Laboratory Technologist and placing them in the upgraded pay matrix with effect from 27/01/2020. It has also been declared therein that in case of incumbent not possessing the stipulated essential educational qualification and experience, the revised pay scale and re-designation will not be granted and their cases can only be considered by the Council for grant of revised pay scale on acquiring the said educational qualification and experience and till such time, they will continue to draw the existing pay scale as stipulated in the pre-revised RRs and the designations will not be revised.
5. Thus, facts remain that recruitment rules have not been given any retrospective effect, applicants along with persons who already possessed bachelor's degree in medical laboratory science were given the same pay fixation and all were qualified and eligible in accordance with the educational qualification prescribed in the erstwhile Recruitment Rules, therefore, the revised recruitment rules which had prospective effect, should not have any impact on the service conditions of the 6 of 34 employees who already existed in that post prior to 27/01/2020. However in view of the proceedings dated 03/09/2020 of the 2 nd respondent, the pay scale of the lab Technicians who participated in the selection proceedings along with the applicants and who had faced the very same common examination and who had been appointed along with the applicants and were awarded the very same scale of pay at the time of initial appointment, alone have been given the benefits of revision of pay by upgrading their pay from PB-1 to PB-2 with Grade Pay Rs.4,200/-. Though the 2 nd Respondent had stated in paragraph 8 that in case of incumbents not in a possession of stipulated essential educational qualification and experience, the revised pay scale and re-designation will not be granted, but there was no clarity as to whether the incumbents mentioned in paragraph 8 are those who have been appointed on or after 27/01/2020 or the said declaration is applicable to those who have been appointed prior to 27/01/2020.
6. While applicants were under bona fide belief that paragraph 8 of the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 03/09/2020 will be made applicable to only those who were appointed under revised recruitment rules, and had legitimate expectation that they will be given revision of pay scale from Pay Band-1 to Pay Band-2 with GP Rs.4200 along with their counterparts who have acquired Bachelor's Degree in the Medical Laboratory Science but selected and appointed in the same scale of pay during the year 2016, the subsequent action of the 2 nd Respondent in 7 of 34 restricting the benefits of re-designation and upgradation in pay scale only to those person who were selected along with the applicants but possessed degree in Medical Laboratory Science alone, was evident from the Office Order No. 09/2021 dated 13/01/2021 issued by the Siddha Central Research Institute. Out of five persons who have been given the benefits of revised pay scale, four persons were appointed during the year 2017 and are very much junior to applicants. While the first three applicants were appointed in the month of August 2016 and 4 th and 5th applicants were appointed in 2017, the said four persons, namely, Dhanasekar, Ramkumar, Sevanthi, and Mohammed Bilal, were appointed only on 14/07/2017, 14/07/2017, 03/08/2019 and 02/08/2019, respectively, subsequent to the appointment of junior-most applicant herein and have been granted revised pay in Pay Band-2 with Rs.4200/ GP. Thus, juniors who were appointed three years later than applicants have been granted higher pay. These four persons who have got the benefits of revised pay with redesignation are all performing the very same duties and responsibilities as that of the applicants. Therefore, the said order of 2 nd Respondent granting unequal pay for equal work and causing pay anomaly between juniors and seniors is contrary to the Rules and is highly unjust and illegal. Though the applicants have given representations to respondents requesting to redress their grievances and grant upgradation of pay scale benefits along with their co-appointees and juniors, but it has failed to evoke any response till date. Under such circumstances, applicants have approached this Tribunal for seeking the relief above stated.
8 of 34
7. The respondents have filed their reply statement through their counsel, Mr. M Kishore Kumar, SPC contending that vide letter No. L-19013/9/2020-A5 dated 28.04.2020 (Annexure R-1) addressed to all the Research Councils under the Ministry of AYUSH, including the Central Council for Research in Siddha, Chennai, Ministry of AYUSH informed that a case was under consideration with Ministry of AYUSH for structural adjustment of pay bands in the cadre of Laboratory Staff in all Research Councils at par with similarly placed posts in National Institutes under Ministry of AYUSH. With the approval of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, the pay scale of Lab Assistant has been upgraded from Pay Band-1. Grade Pay Rs.2000/- to Pay Band- 1, Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- (Pay Matrix 3 to 5) and the pay scale of Lab Tech has been upgraded from pay Band -1, Grade Pay Rs.2400/- to Pay Band 2, Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- (Pay Matrix 4 to 6). Further, the post of Lab Assistant has been re-designated as "Junior Medical Laboratory Technologist and Lab Technician has been re-designated as "Medical Laboratory Technologist". As regards experience stipulated in the revised RRs, the experience possessed by the individuals prior to appointment in their grade as well as regular service rendered subsequent to appointment in the said post may be taken into consideration.
8. It is contended that the question of the structural adjustment of the pay scale in the cadre of Laboratory staff in the Research Councils at par with the similar placed posts in the National Institutes under the Ministry of AYUSH has been considered in 9 of 34 consultation with Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. On the approval of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, the same has been revised subject to following conditions:
(I) The revision of pay scale will be effective from 27.01.2020 the date of approval of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure;
(ii) The revision is subject to change in the recruitment rules as per the norms of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and also subject to the condition that if any of the existing incumbents do not meet these qualifications stipulated in the proposed RRs of the posts of Laboratory Staff, they will not be entitled to the upgraded pay scale till they attained the requisite qualifications.
9. Accordingly, with the approval of competent authority, Ministry of AYUSH has revised the recruitment rules as per norms of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for the posts of Lab Assistant and Lab Technician in respect of all the Research Councils, vide letter No L-19013/9/2020-AS dated 28.04.2020. Thus, the existing recruitment rules for the posts of Lab Assistant and Lab Technician stand superseded. The revision of the pay scale will be effective from 27.01.2020 the date of approval of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. Thus, the respondent No.1 has amended the recruitment rules as per the norms of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, on the advice and approval of the Ministry of Finance 10 of 34 and Department of Expenditure.
10. It is further contended that the Lab Assistants presently working in CCRS and who possessed essential educational qualification and experience stipulated in the revised RRs. i.e., 10+2 with science subject and DMLT from any Government recognized Institution with one-year relevant experience, were re-designated as Junior Medical Laboratory Technologist and were placed in the upgraded Pay Matrix 5 with effect from 27.01.2020. Likewise, the Lab Technicians who possessed the essential educational qualification and experience stipulated in the revised RRs. i.e., Bachelor's degree in medical laboratory science with 2 years relevant experience, were re-designated as Medical Laboratory Technologists and were placed in the upgraded Pay Matrix 6 with effect 27/01/2020.
11. It is also contended that in case of incumbents, not in possession of stipulated essential educational qualification and experience, the revised pay scale and re- designation will not be granted. Their cases can only be considered by the Council for grant of revised pay scale on acquiring the said educational qualification and experience. Till such time, they will continue to draw the existing pay scale as stipulated in the pre-revised RRs and they are not entitled for designations.
11 of 34
12. The above action is justified by the respondents stating that it is the prerogative of the Government of India to undertake the structural adjustments of the pay bands for various posts taking into consideration the functional necessity and to maintain uniformity among the similarly placed cadres in various Research Councils under the Ministry of AYUSH. It is inevitable that whenever a policy is framed by the Government, a group within the same cadre may not be satisfied or convinced with the revised policy. However, in the present case, the incumbents in the Laboratory cadre, who do not meet the requisite qualifications as per the revised RRs have been given an opportunity to obtain the educational qualifications in order the get the benefit of higher pay bands. In this background, applicants have approached this Tribunal with the prayer to re-designate the post of the applicant as Medical Lab Technologist and upgrade the pay scale from Pay Band 1 to Pay Band 2 with Rs.4200 GP with effect from date of initial appointment. In the light of the facts explained above, the option is now open to the applicants to acquire the requisite educational qualifications, and no time limit has been prescribed for acquiring the requisite educational qualifications. As and when the applicants obtain the requisite qualifications, they will be considered for the benefits from the date of their acquiring the Degree/Diploma. Therefore, he submits that O.A is devoid of merits and prayed for its dismissal.
13. Applicants have filed rejoinder contending that Ministry of Ayush had formed 12 of 34 an expert committee in accordance with CAT Jaipur Bench order and took decision to revise designation and pay upgradation to all Lab Technician despite their dissimilarity on 10.06.2016. But, only in case of Council Lab Technician, the Ministry of Ayush decided on 03.02.2020 to sanction revised designation and pay upgradation only to Laboratory staff who meet the revised recruitment rules which were revised vide order dated 28/04/2020. By virtue of the impugned order, despite doing same nature of work, the applicants draw lesser pay than the beneficiaries of revised pay throughout their service. Further, to acquire qualification as per Revised recruitment rules, applicants have to complete Bachelor's degree in Medical Lab Technology which is 3 years' course and there is additional internship of 1 year in Medical colleges of Tamil Nadu Government which makes total duration of the course to be 36 to 48 months. But under rule 51 of the Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, applicants are eligible for a maximum of 24 months study leave even though duration of the course is of 36 to 48 months.
14. Applicants have further contended that Siddha Central Research Institute where applicants are working has sanctioned strength of 24 Lab Technician post. As per the impugned order, out of 24 Lab Technicians, only 5 Lab Technician are eligible for designation and pay revision under the revised RR, and in case of remaining 19 Lab technicians, if have to go to acquire required qualification for a period of 36-48 months, there will be big exigency of public service. The applicants 13 of 34 who are recruited 2016 cannot put under the revised recruitment rules which is not retrospective. In this regard, the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 30/07/2012 passed in the case of D.P. Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors in W.P. (C) 4351/2010 is relied upon which is as under:
"31. The case of the petitioners cannot be brought at par with the Rules and Regulations of the Government of India. The respondents Council is not providing accommodation, pension, CGHS benefits and posting on higher pay-scale on deputation in other Departments, therefore, enforcement of the new revised bye-laws and revised Recruitment Rules would hamper the future prospects of the petitioners and reduce the motivation which certainly adversely affects the working of the organization.
32. To the change of bye-laws and Recruitment Rules even the respondents have not given the retrospective effect, therefore, the petitioners cannot be put under the new revised bye-laws and revised Recruitment Rules which change the conditions of service and alter the advantage of the employees.".
15. Applicants have also relied on G. No. AB.14017/13/2013-Estt. (RR) (1349) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) North Block, New Delhi wherein, as to the question whether Recruitment Rules are applicable retrospectively, it is replied that "The legal position is that the posts are to be filled up as per the eligibility conditions prescribed in the 14 of 34 Recruitment Rules in force at the time of occurrence of vacancies unless the Recruitment Rules amended retrospectively. The practice has however been to give effect to the Recruitment Rules prospectively.".
16. Applicants also relied on the recommendations made by the Seventh Pay Commission in paras 7.7.26 to 7.7.31 of its report by referencing the cadre review of laboratory staff of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare finalized with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance. In that proposal of MoHFW, it is clearly mentioned that all existing medical laboratory staffs at level 1 & 2 may be considered for promotion on basis of length of service based on DoP&T guidelines.
17. Therefore, it is contended by the applicants that in this case, respondents have failed to take similar decision for the existing incumbents. The non-granting of pay upgradation from 2400 GP to 4200 GP to the applicants has resulted in severe discrimination. It has resulted in pay disparity between seniors and juniors and anomaly in pay fixation of applicants in laboratory cadre. Hence prayed for allowing this OA.
18. Respondents have filed reply to rejoinder reiterating their stand.
15 of 34
19. Heard both the counsels and perused the record.
20. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that as the impugned order dated 03/09/2020 is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. It is not the case of respondents that applicants did not possess the educational qualification as stipulated in the recruitment rules as prevailed at the time of their appointment. It is also not the case of respondents that the rules have been revised with retrospective effect from the date of their appointment. Since the change in the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Lab Technician to those who possessed Bachelor's Degree in Medical Laboratory Science with 2 years relevant experience has come to effect from prospective date, granting revision of pay scale and other benefits to co- appointees of applicants and to those who were appointment subsequent to applicants but prior to 27/01/2020, in exclusion of applicants, clearly suffers from vice of selective discrimination.
21. Ld. counsel further submitted that it is settled law that vested and accrued rights of the employees cannot be plugged away by way of retrospective amendment of rules and in the absence of such retrospective amendment of rules, it can never be plugged by a rule which has consciously been brought only with prospective effect. The right of getting equal pay on par with any co-selectee and co-appointee is an accrued right to the applicants and that right has been accrued to the applicants as 16 of 34 early as in 2016 itself. In such circumstances, the proceedings of the 2 nd Respondent granting unequal pay for equal work and causing a pay anomaly resulting in junior drawing higher pay than senior, is highly unjust and illegal and violates of the Rules pertaining to the revision of pay scales.
22. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that OA is misconceived, legally untenable, and devoid of merit. It is the prerogative of the Government of India to undertake the structural adjustments of the pay bands for various posts taking into consideration the functional necessity and to maintain uniformity among the similarly placed cadres in various Research Councils under the Ministry of AYUSH. The applicants were appointed long prior to the Revised RRs and cannot claim automatic upgradation or re-designation as a matter of right under the new rules. However, the incumbents in the Laboratory cadre, who do not meet the requisite qualifications as per the revised RRs, have been given opportunity to obtain the educational qualifications in order the get the benefit of higher pay bands.
23. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the objective of Research Councils is to conduct research in the field of respective medicines and considering its paramount importance, to improve the standard of research, recruitment rules have been amended to revise the qualifications for the post of Medical Technicians who assist the Researchers. The applicants admittedly do not possess B. Sc. (Medical 17 of 34 Laboratory Science) and hence fail to meet the essential eligibility criteria for the upgraded post. Allowing applicants who do not have requisite qualifications would adversely affect the research of the Councils. Therefore, denial of re-designation and upgraded pay is not discriminatory, but a logical consequence of non-fulfillment of mandatory qualifications.
24. Learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R. D. Sharma & Anr in Civil Appeal Nos.474-475 of 2022 [SLP(Civil) Nos. 547-548 of 2021] to contend "equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right vested in an employee and also relied on the decision in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association bearing Civil Appeal No.3518 of 1997.
25. We have perused the pleadings and materials placed on record and considered the submissions made and citations given by both the counsels.
26. It is observed that it was pursuant to the order passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 334/2012 dated 30/06/2015 that the proposal regarding structural adjustment in the hierarchy of Lab Technicians in the National Institutes under the Ministry of AYUSH to grant pay parity was undertaken by that Ministry 18 of 34 and an Expert Committee was constituted by it. The Committee recommended that to provide equal pay scale to the Lab Technicians in all the Institutes, Recruitment Rules need to be revised in accordance with DoE Note dated 06/07/2015 on the proposal of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare pursuant to cadre review of Medical Laboratory Staff in four Central Government Hospitals of Delhi. Accordingly, with reference to the Office Order dated 27/07/2015 of Safdar Jung Hospital, the Committee recommended revision in the hierarchy of Lab Posts in all National Institutes under the Ministry of AYUSH and suggested revised name of the post and pay scale as specified in its report. The recommendation of the Committee was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure and concurrence was given to the said recommendation. Accordingly, an order dated 29/08/2016 was issued by the Ministry of AYUSH with prospective effect. In terms of the said order, the National Institute of Siddha, vide order dated 02/11/2016, made structural adjustment in the hierarchy of Laboratory Technicians with effect from 29/08/2016 and accordingly granted upgradation of pay scales to all existing incumbents (as per the RTI information at Annexure -VII).
27. Subsequently, the Ministry of AYUSH issued letter dated 03/02/2020 to the Director General CCRAS, CCRUM, CCRH & CCRS regarding review of structural adjustment of the pay scale in the cadre of laboratory staff in the Research Councils at par with similarly placed posts in National Institutes under the Ministry of 19 of 34 AYUSH, stating that it has now been decided with the approval of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure to the revision of pay scale of Laboratory Assistant (Level 5 (GP Rs. 4200/-) against [Level 3 (GP Rs.2000/-)] & Laboratory Technicians [Level 6 (GP 4200/-)] against [Level 4 (GP Rs. 2400/-), subject to the following conditions: -
(i) the revision of pay scale will be effective from 27/01/2020, the date of approval of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure.
(ii) the revision is subject to change in the recruitment rules as per norm of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as indicated below and also subject to the condition that if any of the existing incumbents do not meet these qualifications stipulated in the proposed RR of the post of laboratory staff, they will not be entitled to upgraded pay scale till they attain the requisite qualifications: -
S. Existing name of Revised name of Post Educational Qualification No. post and Pay scales and Pay Scale 1 Lab Assistant (GP Juniar Medical Lab Essential:
Rs. 2000/-) Technologist (GP 2800) 10+2 with science subject and DMLT from any Govt.
recognized Institution with 1
years relevant experience
Desirable: Degree in
Medical Laboratory Science
2 Lab Technician (GP Medical Lab Bachelor Degree in Medical
2400/-) Technologist (GP Laboratory Science with 2
4200/-) years relevant experience
20 of 34
28. Subsequently, the Ministry of AYUSH issued a letter dated 28/04/2020 to the Director General of CCRAS, CCRUM, CCRH & CCRS conveying the approval of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure to the revision of pay scale of Laboratory Assistant and Laboratory Technicians, subject to change in the recruitment rules as per norms of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and that the recruitment rules to the post of Junior Medical Lab Technologist and Medical Lab Technologist have been revised with the approval of Secretary (AYUSH) and the approved recruitment rules were forwarded for necessary action.
29. Thereafter, the Director General of Central Council for Research in Siddha (CCRS) issued order dated 03/09/2020 to all In-charges of the Peripheral Institutes/ Units regarding revision of recruitment rules and upgradation of pay scales of Laboratory Staff in CCRS, as under: -
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN SIDDHA Ministry of AYLUSH, Govt. of India SCRI Buliding, Anna Govt. Hospital Campus, Arumbakkam, Chennai-6 Phone: 2621 1621, 2621 2421 Fax: 044-2521 1621 www.siddhacouncil.com, www.siddharesearchcouncil.org, Email: [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
F.No.2-77/2017-CCRS/Estt. Dated the 3rd September, 2020 Subject: Revision of Recruitment Rules and Upgradation of Pay Scales of Laboratory Staff in CCRS regarding-
21 of 34 A case was under consideration with Ministry of AYUSH for structural adjustment of pay bands in the cadre of Laboratory Staff in all Research Councils at par with similarly placed posts in National Institutes under Ministry of AYUSH. With the approval of Ministry of Finance. Department of Expenditure, the pay scale of Lab Assistant has been upgraded from Pay Band -1. Grade Pay Rs.2000/- to Pay Band- 1, Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- (Pay Matrix 3 to 5) and the pay scale of Lab Tech has been upgraded from Pay Band-1, Grade Pay Rs.2400/- to Pay Band 2, Grade Pay Rs. 4200/-(Pay Matrix 4 to 6).
2. The post of Lab Assistant has been re-designated as "Junior Medical Laboratory Technologist and Lab Technician has been re-
designated as "Medical Laboratory Technologist."
3 Accordingly, with the approval of Secretary (AYUSH), Ministry of AYUSH has revised the Recruitment Rules for the posts of Lab Assistant and Lab Technician in respect of all the Research Councils, vide letter No L-19013/9/2020-AS dated 28.04.2020. Thus, the existing Recruitment Rules for the posts of Lab Assistant and Lab Technician stand superseded.
4. The revision of the pay scale will be effective from 27.01.2020 the date of approval of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure.
5. In charges of the peripheral Institutes/Units are directed to initiate necessary action for revising the designation and pay scale of the existing Lab Assistants, who are in possession of essential educational qualification and experience stipulated in the revised RRs, i.e. 10+2 with science subject and DMLT from any Government recognized Institution with 1 year relevant experience, as Junior Medical Laboratory Technologist and placing them in the upgraded Pay Matrix 5 with effect from 27.01.2020. Such cases may be forwarded to this Council along with the verified copies of educational qualification and experience for grant of approval of the competent authority.
6. Likewise, in the case of Lab Technician, necessary action may be initiated for revising the designation and pay scale of the existing Lab Technicians, who are in possession of essential educational 22 of 34 qualification and experience stipulated in the revised RRs. i.e., Bachelor's Degree in Medical Laboratory Science with 2 years relevant experience, as Medical Laboratory Technologists and placing them in the upgraded Pay Matrix 6 with effect 27 January, 2020. Such cases may be forwarded to this Council along with the verified copies of educational qualification and experience for grant of approval of the competent authority.
7. As regards experience stipulated in the revised RRs, the experience possessed by the Individuals prior to appointment in their grade as well as regular service rendered subsequent to appointment in the said post, may be taken into consideration.
8. In case of incumbents, not in possession of stipulated essential educational qualification and experience, the revised pay scale and re-designation will not be granted. Their cases can only be considered by the Council for grant of revised pay scale on acquiring the said educational qualification and experience. Till such time, they will continue to draw the existing pay scale as stipulated in the pre- revised RRs and their designations will not be revised. Such cases may be forwarded for approval as when the affected individuals acquire the stipulated essential qualification and experience.
(Prof. Dr. K. Kanakavalli) Director General To All Incharges of the Peripheral Institutes/Units Copy to Accounts/Admin/Estt, Sections, CCRS Hors, Chennai.
30. Now, from the facts of the case, it is observed that pursuant to Advertisement No.03/2015, applicants were appointed as Lab Technicians on 19/08/2016 and were granted the pay scale of Pay Band-1 with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- (Level 4 in Pay Matrix) along with other co-appointees. Applicants had possessed educational qualification and experience as prescribed in the recruitment rules then existing.
23 of 34 Subsequently, with effect from 27/01/2020, the post of Lab Technician was re- designated as Medical Laboratory Technologist and the pay scale was upgraded to Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- (Level 6 in Pay Matrix). However, as stated in the order dated 28/04/2020, the upgradation of pay scale of Lab Technicians to Level 6 (Grade Pay Rs. 4200/-) was subject to change in the recruitment rules as per norms of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
31. Though in the said order dated 28/04/2020, it is stated that the recruitment rules have been revised with the approval of Secretary (Ayush) and the approved rules have been enclosed therewith, it is observed that neither in the said order nor in the revised recruitment rules, the date of effect of the rules is mentioned. However, there can't be any dispute that it is brought into force prospectively and not retrospectively. It was neither the policy nor the intention to bring the revised recruitment rules retrospectively. Even otherwise, as the respondent no.2 Council is a non-statutory autonomous organization under the Ministry of AYUSH, it lacks plenary powers and hence there is no competence to bring revised rules with retrospective effect.
32. It is contended by the applicants that co-appointees who were appointed along with applicants and other juniors who possessed Bachelor's degree in Medical Laboratory Science have been given the benefit of pay scale upgradation while applicants have been denied the same. All of them are performing the very same 24 of 34 duties and responsibilities as that of the applicants. Even juniors who were appointed three years subsequent to the appointment of applicants but prior to 27/01/2020 have been given the revision of pay scale. The respondents have not denied these specific averments made by the applicants. Under these circumstances, applicants claim that granting of unequal pay for equal work and causing pay anomaly where juniors are drawing higher pay than seniors, is highly unethical, unjust and illegal. Therefore, they claim pay parity with their co-appointees as they are entitled for 'equal pay for equal work' and their vested and accrued rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily. As the impugned order and the acts of respondents suffer from vice of selective discrimination, it is liable to be set aside.
33. The respondents have rebutted these grounds raised by the applicants. Regarding right to equal pay for equal work, the respondents contend that equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right and can be denied on the basis of qualifications, duties, and responsibilities. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R. D. Sharma & Anr in Civil Appeal Nos.474-475 of 2022 [SLP(Civil) Nos. 547-548 of 2021] and in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association bearing Civil Appeal No. 3518 of 1997. These decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case as the thrust of these decisions is to the effect that determination of pay scales is the primary function of 25 of 34 the executive and not the judiciary. However, in the case on hand, the issue is that of denial of pay scale and not its determination. Though the Apex Court has observed that courts should approach such matters with restraint, it has clearly held that courts may interfere when they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the Government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter.
34. In the case of Randhir Singh vs Union of India & Ors (AIR 1982 SC 879), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing that the principle "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance, held that "the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Art. 39(d), we are of the view that the principle 'Equal pay for Equal work' is deducible from those Article and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though these drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer.".
35. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that applicants admittedly do not possess B.Sc. (Medical Laboratory Science) and hence fail to meet the essential 26 of 34 eligibility criteria for the upgraded post. Therefore, denial of re-designation and upgraded pay is not discriminatory, but a logical consequence of non-fulfilment of mandatory qualifications. This argument is fallacious. Admittedly applicants possessed minimum essential qualifications required for appointment to the post of Lab Technicians when they were appointed on 19/08/2016. The post of Lab Technicians was redesignated as Medical Laboratory Technologist with upgradation of pay scale and the revised recruitment rules to the said post have come into force from a prospective date. These revised rules prescribed qualifications for appointment to the post of Medical Laboratory Technologist different from those which were in force till then, and the revised rules now require Bachelor's degree in Medical Laboratory Science. This change in the qualifications for appointment to the post of Medical Laboratory Technologist did not impact the applicants as they were already appointed to that post much before the revised rules came into force. Upgradation of the pay in the post already occupied by the applicants cannot be said to be appointment to a different post carrying a higher scale of pay in the cadre of laboratory staff. After redesignation, the nomenclature of the said post which was hitherto called as 'Laboratory Technologist' was replaced with the nomenclature 'Medical Laboratory Technologist'. It automatically applied to the post held by the applicants. It is not the case of the respondents that Medical Laboratory Technologist is a promotional post to the post of Lab Technologist. 'Promotion' infers appointment to a different post carrying a higher scale of pay. That is not the case here. Thus, 27 of 34 applicants continued to hold the very same post redesignated as Medical Laboratory Technologist and therefore, they were entitled to the revised pay scale attached to that post.
36 It is observed that in the revised recruitment rules, the method of recruitment to the post of Medical Laboratory Technologist in CCRS is shown as "27 posts by direct recruitment and one post by promotion to be filled by Junior Medical Lab Technologist with 6 years' service". Applicants were not appointed as Lab Assistants which is now redesignated as Junior Medical Lab Technologist. As applicants have been appointed to the redesignated post of Medical Laboratory Technologist itself, the revised recruitment rules could not have been applied to them retrospectively and divest them of their accrued rights to the pay attached to that post.
37. In the case of A.A. Calton vs The Director Of Education & Another [1983 SCC (3) 280], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "No retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision so as to impair or take away an existing right, unless the statute either expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have such retrospective effect.".
38. Further, in the case of P. Mahendran and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., it was held that "Admittedly the amending Rules do not contain any provision 28 of 34 enforcing the amended Rules with retrospective effect. In the absence of any express provision contained in the amending Rules it must be held to be prospective in nature. The Rules which are prospective in nature cannot take away or impair the right of candidates." It was further held that "It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If a rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment, the rule cannot be given retrospective effect... "
39. In view of the above, the revised recruitment rules which were brought into force prospectively with effect, applied only to those persons who were appointed after the rules came into force. As applicants were appointed to the post of Lab Technicians, redesignated as Medical Laboratory Technologist, on 19/08/2016 itself, the revised rules which had prospective effect, could not impair or take away existing rights of applicants in respect of their posts. Therefore, applicants could not have been discriminated against for grant of the benefit of revised pay scale which was attached to the post they held. The respondents clearly acted arbitrarily and without any rational basis in conferring benefits of revised recruitment rules to co-appointees
29 of 34 of applicants and to those who were appointed subsequent to the appointment of applicants but prior to 27/01/2020 under the pre-revised recruitment rules.
40. As observed above, the very basis for undertaking structural adjustment in the hierarchy of Lab Technicians in the Institutes under the Ministry of AYUSH was pursuant to the direction given by the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.334/2012 which was filed by a Lab Technician of National Institute of Ayurveda seeking pay parity. The stand then taken by the respondents was that there is no wholesome parity between Lab Technicians in NIA Jaipur and Government Hospitals. However, the Expert Committee constituted in accordance with the said order of Jaipur Bench based its recommendation on the Office Order of Safdarjung Hospital for restructure of NIA. The Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure also had given its approval to the recommendations made by the Expert Committee but the same was subject to change in recruitment rules as per the norms of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. In fact, on the advice of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, it was decided by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare that all existing Medical Laboratory staff at level 1 & 2 may be considered for promotion on the basis of length of service based on DoP&T Guidelines. As per the RTI information furnished to the applicants, the National Institute of Siddha has also granted upgradation of pay scales to all its incumbents. It is pertinent to note that the recommendations made by the Seventh Pay Commission 30 of 34 is also based on the cadre review of laboratory staff as finalised by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance and that Ministry has implemented the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission on revision in pay scales. As regards upgradation of the pay scale of Laboratory Staff in CGHS (Annexure A-5), the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has issued guidelines and clarifications, relevant portion of which is as under: -
"(ii) The Order is applicable to all the employees holding the erstwhile post of Laboratory Assistant and Laboratory Technicians in CGHS irrespective of the qualifications they are presently holding. However, on framing/amendment of Recruitment Rules, further appointment/promotion will be made only as per the conditions stipulated therein;
(iii) The re-designation as 'Medical Laboratory Technologist' and 'Medical Technologist' as mentioned in the order is applicable to all the concerned staff in CGHS irrespective of the qualification held by them."
41. The above clarification issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had apparently taken care to avert creation of any pay anomaly and other ill consequences amongst the employees in the post of Laboratory Assistant and Laboratory Technicians on account of subsequent change in the rules. As per the advice of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, the respondents should have followed the above norms of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
31 of 34 The respondents should have, in a like manner, upgraded the pay scale of all employees holding the erstwhile post of Laboratory Technician irrespective of the qualifications held by them as on date of effect of revised recruitment rules and re- designated the posts held by all concerned Laboratory Technicians as 'Medical Laboratory Technologists' irrespective of the qualifications held by them. In fact, even in the order dated 28/04/2020 issued by the Ministry of Ayush, it is stated that the upgradation of pay scale of Lab Technicians to Level 6 (Grade Pay Rs. 4200/-) was subject to change in the recruitment rules as per norms of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Under such circumstances, the Director General of CCRS could not have issued order dated 03/09/2020 to all In-charges of the Peripheral Institutes /Unit including such condition in para 8 of his order which is extracted below: -
"8. In case of incumbents, not in possession of stipulated essential educational qualification and experience, the revised pay scale and re-designation will not be granted. Their cases can only be considered by the Council for grant of revised pay scale on acquiring the said educational qualification and experience. Till such time, they will continue to draw the existing pay scale as stipulated in the pre-revised RRs and their designations will not be revised. Such cases may be forwarded for approval as when the affected individuals acquire the stipulated essential qualification and experience."
42. It is observed that in the approved recruitment rules no such condition is mentioned. Approved Recruitment Rules is as under:-
32 of 34 Recruitment Rules for the Post of Medical Laboratory Technologist under CCRAS/CORUM/CCRH and CCRS 1 Name of the Post Medical Laboratory Technologist 2 Number of posts CCRAS-105 CCRUM-45 CCRS-28 CCRH-46 3 Group-B Group-B 4 Scale of Pay/Pay Band Level-6 (Rs.35400-112400/-) in the Pay Matrix 5 Whether Selection or Non- NA Selection Post 6 Whether Benefit of added years of NA service admissible under Rule 30 of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 7 Age limit for Direct Recruits Not exceeding 35 years 8 Educational and other Bachelor's Degree in Medical qualifications required for Direct Laboratory Science with 2 year Recruits relevant experience 9 Whether Age and Educational No Qualifications prescribed for Direct Recruits will apply in case of Promotees 10 Period of Probation 2 years for Direct Recruitment only 11 Method of Recruitment CCRAS:(4)Four posts by promotion, 101 by direct recruitment CCRUM:100% direct recruitment.
CCRS: (1) One post by promotion, 27 posts by direct recruitment.
CCRH:(1) One post by promotion, 45 posts by direct recruitment 12 In case of Recruitment by Promotion:
Promotion/Deputation/Transfer, Junior Medical Lab. Technologist with Grades from which 6 years Service Promotion/Deputation/Transfer to be made 33 of 34
13 If a Selection Selection Committee and DPC Committee/Departmental 1.Director General -Chairman Promotion Committee exists, what is its Composition. 2. An Expert in the concerned Field
-Member
3. One Nominee from the Ministry of AYUSH Not below the US. -Member
4. One Officer belonging To SC/ST
-Member (Members at SI.No.2 and 4 will be nominated by the Chairman) 14 Circumstances in which UPSC to NA be consulted in making Recruitment
43. It is observed that even in the letter dated 28/04/2020 issued by the Ministry of Ayush to the Director General of CCRS informing about the approval accorded by the competent authority to the revised recruitment rules, there is no mention about any such condition. In the absence of any such condition in the recruitment rules, the 2nd respondent had no authority to impose or include such condition in his order dated 03/09/2020.
44. In the case of Grid Corporation of Orissa & Ors. v. Rasanand Das (2003 10 SCC 297), it is held by the Apex Court that "The conditions of the service cannot be altered to the disadvantage of the employees."
45. Since the whole exercise was undertaken by the Ministry of Ayush on the directions of the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal directing them to comprehensively review the matter to bring about pay parity among the Lab Technicians belonging to 34 of 34 all autonomous institutions under the Ministry of Ayush as they performed identical duties and responsibilities, the respondents could not have created more pay anomaly among them by applying revised recruitment rules retrospectively, when they were brought into force with prospective effect. It is held by the Apex Court that State cannot retrospectively reduce an employee's pay scale or deny benefits, and any such action is grossly arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the action of respondent No. 2 is arbitrary, unjust, irrational, illegal, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 and cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03/09/2020 is liable to be set aside.
46. In view of the above, OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 03/09/2020 is set aside. Respondents are directed to re-designate the post of applicants as Medical Laboratory Technologist and upgrade the pay scale of applicants to Pay Band-2 with Grade pay of Rs.4200/- (Level 6) from 27/01/2020. i.e., the date when the revision in pay scale was made effective in the 2nd respondent Council. The respondents shall complete the whole process and grant all the dues and arrears to the applicants retrospectively from the dates when it became due, with all consequential benefits under the old recruitment rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member(A) Member(J)
asvs 18.02.2026
A.S.V. Sagar Digitally signed by ASAPU
SRINIVASA VIDYASAGAR
P.S., CAT, Date: 2026.03.02 18:04:48
Chennai Bench. +05'30'