Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
P R Ramesh And Others vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 5 January, 2024
1 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00604/2021
ORDER RESERVED : 21.12.2023
DATE OF ORDER : 05.01.2024
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE MR.RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ...MEMBER(A)
1. Shri P.R.Ramesh,
S/o Ramakrishnegowda,
Aged about 46 years,
Presently working as
Subject Matter Specialist (Soil Science),
Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Hirehali, Tumakuru,
Karnataka - 572168.
2. Shri K.N.Jagadish,
S/o C.Krishnappa,
Aged about 45 years,
Presently working as
Subject Matter Specialist,
(Agricultural Extension),
Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Hirehalli, Tumakuru,
Karnataka -572168.
2 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3. Shri Prasanth J.M.,
S/o Thippeswamaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
Presently working as
Subject Matter Specialist (Horticulture),
Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Hirehalli, Tumakuru,
Karnataka -572168.
4. Dr.B.Hanumanthe Gowda,
S/o Bomme Gowda,
Aged about 46 years,
Presently working as
Subject Matter Specialist (Plant Protection),
Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Hirehalli, Tumakuru,
Karnataka -572168.
5. Smt.Radha R. Banakar,
W/o Vishwanatha B.M.,
Aged about 42 years,
Presently working as
Subject Matter Specialist (Home Science),
Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Hirehalli, Tumakuru,
Karnataka -572168.
6. Dr.D.Somashekar,
S/o Veeranna,
Aged about 45 years,
Presently working as
Subject Matter Specialist (Plant Breading),
Hirehalli, Tumakuru,
Karnataka -572168.
3 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
7. Shri Devaiah,
S/o Ponnachha,
Aged about 58 years,
Presently working as
Subject Matter Specialist (Horticulture),
Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Gonikoppal, Ponnampet Taluk,
Kodagu -571213.
8. Shri Prabhakara B.,
S/o Sanamogappa,
Aged about 48 years,
Presently working as
Subject Matter Specialist (Horticulture),
Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Gonikoppal, Ponnampet Taluk,
Kodagu -571213.
9. Shri Veerendra Kumar K.V.,
S/o C.K.Veerabhadraiah,
Aged about 43 years,
Presently working as
Subject Matter Specialist (Plant Protection),
Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Gonikoppal, Ponnampet Taluk,
Kodagu -571213.
10.Dr.Suresh S.C.,
S/o Chandrappa,
Aged about 43 years,
Presently working as
4 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Subject Matter Specialist (Livestock),
Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Gonikoppal Ponnampet Taluk,
Kodagu -571213. ....Applicants
(By Senior Counsel Shri P.S.Rajagopal along with Shri Vyshak
P.N., through video conference and Ms.Gamini Rajagopal, through
physical hearing)
Vs.
1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhavan,
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110001,
Represented by its Director General.
2. Indian Institute of Horticulture Research,
Hessargatta Lake Post,
Bengaluru -560089,
Represented by its Director.
3. The Under Secretary (AE),
Division of Agricultural Extension,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan-I,
New Delhi -110012. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri P.Nishan Unni for Respondents)
5 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
ORDER
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicants have filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"1. To quash Annexure-8 insofar as it denies grade pay of Rs.6000 to the Applicants even though they are recruited before 29.03.2011 and direct the Respondent No.1 to grant Grade Pay of Rs.6000 (Level 10 with rationalized entry pay of Rs.57700/-) with CAS considering past service, from 01.01.2016 to all the Applicants and pay arrears of salary and allowance on that basis and compute their future benefits accordingly along with interest at the rate of 18% on such amount.
2. Award costs;
3. Grant other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the nature and circumstance of the case in the interest of equity and justice."
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicants are that they are working as Subject Matter Specialist ('SMS' for short) in Krishi 6 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Vigyan Kendras ('KVK' for short) which are under the administrative control of Respondent No.1 for over 10 years. The Respondent No.1, Indian Institute of Agricultural Research ( 'ICAR' for short) acting under its mandate has set up several KVKs across the country for the purpose of assessing and developing location specific agricultural technologies by employing different methods of assessment, refinement of technology and demonstrations. The KVKs are Government of India Scheme/project and are entirely funded by the Government of India and implemented through ICAR. All the SMS irrespective of their host institution KVKs, possess the same qualification, are recruited through identical selection process, perform same functions and discharge the same responsibilities. It is the grievance of the applicants that Respondent No.1 vide impugned letter/notification dated 09.03.2021 has granted higher pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 + Rs.6000 Grade Pay, Level-10 with rationalized entry pay of Rs.57,700/- only to SMS appointed prior to 29.03.2011 in State Agricultural Universities, Non- Governmental Organization and Government Departments etc., denying the said benefit to similarly placed applicants herein, who are discriminated only on the ground that they are working in KVKs under 7 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the control of ICAR. Being aggrieved by the denial of the said pay scales to the applicants, the present OA is preferred.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri P.S.Rajagopal along with learned counsel, Shri Vyshak P.N. and learned Counsel, Ms.Gamini Rajagopal representing the applicants argued that the SMS were uniformly conferred the benefit of revised pay under the 6th CPC, which came into effect on 01.01.2006 and even earlier there is no distinction or discrimination between the SMS working in KVKs under Respondent No.1 or State Government or State Agriculture Universities. It is for the first time the applicants are being discriminated by Annexure A8, only on the ground that they are working in KVKs administered by ICAR. The applicants have been denied a higher Grade Pay of Rs.6000 albeit they have been recruited before 29.03.2011, while on the other hand Grade Pay of Rs.6000 is extended to similarly placed SMSs working in KVKs under State Agriculture Universities, Non-Governmental Organization and State Departments etc. The said classification is discriminatory and is not found on any intelligible differentia having nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The artificial classification between the two categories of employees of the same cadre is without 8 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH any justifiable basis. The discrimination in paying the legitimate pay scale to the applicants on the basis of controlling/host institution violates the rights guaranteed to the applicants under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The representations made by the applicants enumerating the disparities in the pay scale has not yielded any response.
4. Learned Senior Counsel inviting the attention of the Bench to Dr.R.S.Paroda's High Power Committee Report on Management of Krishi Vigyan Kendra (Annexure A22) and copy of the Press Note dated 26.07.2015 (Annexure A23) hosted on the website of the first respondent i.e., the speech of Hon'ble Central Agricultural Minister delivered on 26.07.2015, in Indian Agricultural Research Council's 87th Foundation Day, Prize Ceremony and Krishi Vigyan Kendras National Convention, submitted that Hon'ble Minister has ensured that SMSs in ICAR/SAU/NGO/State Government/KVKs should be redesignated uniformly as Scientist/Assistant Professor (PB-3, Rs.15600-39100 with GP Rs.6000) to maintain parity across teaching, research and extension positions. Further Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture assured that the SMS posts in KVKs shall be converted into the posts of Scientists with equal benefits conferred on them and the same has to be implemented.
9 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH No discrimination could be made between the employees coming under the administration of ICAR and other Non-ICAR of KVKs.
5. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel has relied on the following judgments:
1) State of Punjab & Others vs. Jagjit Singh & others - (2017) 1 SCC 148
2) D.S.Nakara & others vs. Union of India - (1983) 1 SCC 305
3) State of Madhaya Pradesh & others vs. Mala Banerjee -
(2015) 7 SCC 698
4) R.L.Marwaha vs. Union of India and others -
(1987) 4 SCC 31
6. Learned Counsel Shri P.Nishan Unni appearing for the respondents submitted that KVKs are established by ICAR, which is an autonomous organisation under the Department of Agricultural Research and Education under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India and the scheme presently known as Strengthening of KVK Scheme. The KVK Scheme is a temporary Scheme/Project and is co-terminus with the plan period and is extended to another plan period 10 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH with the approval of the Cabinet Secretariat through the Expenditure Finance Committee. Hence the complete Scheme or any KVK can be terminated at any time. Each KVK is established under the administrative control of a host organization, viz., ICAR, State Agricultural University (SAU), Central Agricultural University (CAU), Non Governmental Organization (NGO), Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), State Government, Central University (CU), Deemed to be University (DU) and other Educational Institutions (OEI). ICAR as a host organization has 66 KVKs under its research institutes. One among them is Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bengaluru and the applicants work in the KVKs under IIHR. The service conditions of the employees of the KVK are to be governed by the rules, regulations and policies of their respective host organization. The recruitment of the staff is required to be done by the host organization for the sanctioned posts and as per the educational qualifications provided by the Council.
At the time of establishment of a KVK, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is signed between ICAR and the host organization except with ICAR institute. The said MOU clearly states that the staff of the KVK recruited to the sanctioned posts and if the KVK or the Scheme is terminated, the staff will be the sole responsibility 11 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH of the Host Organization. The MOU also provides that any increase in the incentives over and above the salary provided by ICAR will be borne by the respective host Organization. With this background, learned Counsel submitted that ICAR's letter dated 29.03.2011 has never been superseded till date. It clearly mentions that the liability of the ICAR towards the payment of pay and allowances will however be limited to pay scale as per KVKs under ICAR Institutes or actual whichever is less. The same is reiterated in ICAR's letter dated 09.03.2021 (Annexure A8). Thus ICAR has uniformly granted Rs.5400 Grade Pay to SMS across all KVKs. The impugned order at Annexure A8 is not applicable to the applicants, who have already been extended the 7th CPC on 19.01.2017 vide Annexure A7, along with regular employees of ICAR. Hence they have no locus standi to challenge the impugned order, Annexure A8. Learned Counsel pointing out the distinction between those employees directly under the control of ICAR i.e., the applicant's class and those attached to different host organization covered under Annexure A8, submitted that the applicants belong to different class as compared to those KVKs attached to a host organization. Therefore any comparison between them is not possible. The applicants had no grievance when they were given the benefit of the 7th CPC and the same 12 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH was not extended to the KVKs under the other host organizations. No equality was reached at that point of time, as such it is implicit that the applicants acknowledged that they are the different class from KVKs under the host organization. There cannot be any question of parity between these two classes.
7. The host organization has its own recruitment process in filling up the sanctioned posts of SMS for KVKs. While laying down the duties and responsibilities of KVK staff, it is clearly mentioned that different staff may be required to perform different roles depending upon the local needs and circumstances. The applicants are the employees of the Respondent No.2 (IIHR) enjoying the privileges of personnel policies and service conditions under Technical Service Rules of ICAR. The qualification, mode of appointment, scope of work, function etc., of SMS working in all the KVKs are not the same. Learned Counsel further submitted that no classification or categorisation is made on the basis of a date. The contents of the letter dated 09.03.2021 (Annexure A8) flow from ICAR's letter dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure R3) and clarification has been issued to ICAR's letter dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure R4). Learned Counsel further 13 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH submitted that the six posts of SMS sanctioned for a particular KVK, can be filled from any of the disciplines viz., Agricultural Extension, Agronomy, Plant Breeding, Livestock Production, Horticulture, Home Science, Agricultural Engineering, Fisheries, Agro-Forestry, Soil Science and Plant Production. The KVK has to select the six disciplines from this list depending upon the local needs and requirements for taking up various activities of the KVK as per mandate and in consultation with the concerned Director, ATARI. Thus it was reiterated that the impugned order, Annexure A8 dated 09.03.2021 is in the form of clarification, guidance to those SAUs, who were recruiting SMSs in the Grade Pay of Rs.6000/- before 29.03.2011 and it is without committing any financial liability on the ICAR. ICAR's financial liability is restricted to the pay scales approved for the KVK Scheme through the EFC document. The applicants, the employees coming under the control of ICAR, have never been recruited in the Grade Pay of Rs.6000/- either before or after 29.03.2011. On these grounds, learned Counsel sought for dismissal of the OA.
8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
14 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
9. Before adverting to the dispute involved herein, it is beneficial to refer to the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant.
10. In Jagjit Singh supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed about the principles of equal pay for equal work and in para- 42.4 has observed thus:
"42.4. Persons holding the same rank/designation (in different departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay, and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' (see - Randhir Singh vs. Union of India case, State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, and the Hukum Chand Gupta vs. ICAR case). Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked, merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature."
11. In D.S.Nakara supra, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:
"57. The learned Attorney General next referred to D.C. Gouse and Co. etc. v. State of Kerala & Another. This Court while repelling the contention that the choice of April 1, 1973 as the date of imposition of the building tax is discriminatory with reference to Article 14 of the Constitution, approved the ratio in 15 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH the case of Union of India and Another vs. Parameswaran Match Works etc. supra. Even while reaching this conclusion the Court observed that it is not shown how it could be said that the date (April 1, 1973) for the levy of the tax was wide of the reasonable mark. What appealed to the Court was that earlier an attempt was made to impose the building tax with effect from March 2, 1961 under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1961 but the Act was finally struck down as unconstitutional by this Court as per its decision dated August 13, 1968. While delivering the budget speech, at the time of introduction of the 1970-71 budget, the intention to introduce a fresh Bill for the levy of tax was made clear. The Bill was published in June 1973 in which it was made clear that the Act would be brought into force from April 1, 1970. After recalling the various stages through which the Bill passed before being enacted as Act, this Court held that the choice of date April 1, 1973 was not wide of the reasonable mark. The decision proceeds on the facts of the case. But the principle that when a certain date or eligibility criteria is selected with reference to legislative or executive measure which has the pernicious tendency of dividing an otherwise homogeneous class and the choice of beneficiaries of the legislative/executive action becomes selective, the division or classification made by choice of date or eligibility criteria must have some relation to the objects sought to be achieved. And apart from the first test that the division must be referable to some rational principle, if the choice of the date or classification is wholly unrelated to the 16 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH objects sought to be achieved, it cannot be upheld on the specious plea that was the choice of the Legislature."
12. In Mala Banerjee supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:
"6. We also find ourselves unable to agree with the Appellants' submission that this is a policy matter and, therefore, should not be interfered with by the Courts. In Federation of Railway Officers Association vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289, this Court has already considered the scope of judicial review and has enumerated that where a policy is contrary to law or is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution or is arbitrary or irrational, the Courts must perform their constitutional duties by striking it down. The Appellants have not been able to explain why it chose to deny teachers the benefit of the second Kramonnati while granting this benefit to all other employees, thus discriminating against them and violating their fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is indeed paradoxical that teachers who prepare persons for employment and leadership are dealt with in a parodical attitude by the State. Further, we reiterate that no explanation is forthcoming for granting the second Kramonnati with effect from 1.8.2003. This is neither the date in the original scheme nor justifiable on the basis of any other material available on the record. Many employees had completed twenty four years 17 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH of service by 1999; therefore, in postponing their second Kramonnati by four years, the Appellants have departed from the basic object of the Scheme. The 3.9.2005 Order failed to explain the basis of this decision, and is thus arbitrary in nature and discriminatory towards the Respondents and others in their position."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in R.L.Marwaha supra, has observed thus:
"6. In this writ petition the petitioner has questioned the validity of the condition imposed in paragraph 7 of the said order making the order applicable only to such of the employees of the Government/ autonomous bodies who retired from service after the date of the issue of the order. The petitioner's contention is that it was not open to the Government to deny the benefit of the order to those employees who had retired prior to the date of the order as it would bring into existence two classes of pensioners- one class of pensioners who had retired prior to the date of the Government order and another class of pensioners who had retired subsequent to the date of the Government order and that such classification was not warranted under Article 14 of the Constitution as there was no nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved by the Government order.
18 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
7. The writ petition is resisted by the respondents--the Union of India and the ICAR. It is pleaded on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to count the period of service rendered by him under the Government of India as a part of his qualifying service for purposes of pension since he was only a temporary Government servant when he was working in the office of the Settlement Commissioner, that he had joined the service of the ICAR as a fresh entrant and that there was no Government policy which entitled the petitioner to count the period of his Government service as part of qualifying service for pension before the Government order dated 29.8.1984 was passed. The fact that the petitioner was a temporary Government servant when he was working in the Central Government is immaterial because the Government order itself says that the service rendered by a Central Government employee under the Government would be allowed to be counted towards pension under the autonomous body irrespective of whether the employee was temporary or permanent in Government provided he is later on confirmed in the autonomous body. This condition is satisfied in this case. It is admitted that the petitioner was treated as a new entrant when he joined the service of the ICAR on the same day on which he ceased to be the employee of the Central Government. But the fact that the petitioner joined the service of the ICAR as a new entrant cannot again be an impediment for extending the benefit of the Government order dated August 29, 1984 because every employee who leaves the 19 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH service of the Central Government to join the service of the ICAR has to be treated as a new entrant at the ICAR because it is not a department of the Central Government but a registered body. In fact there cannot be a transfer to the ICAR from the Central Government. There is no substance in this contention of the respondents.
8. There is no dispute that the ICAR though it is a body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, is a body which is sponsored, financed and controlled by the Central Government. There has been a continuous mobility of personnel between Central Government departments and autonomous bodies, like the ICAR both ways and the Government thought, and rightly so, that it would not be just to deprive an employee who is later on absorbed in the service of the autonomous body, like the ICAR the benefit of the service rendered by him earlier in the Central Government for purposes of computation of pension and similarly the benefit of service rendered by an employee who is later on absorbed in the Central Government service the benefit of the service rendered by him earlier in the autonomous body for purposes of computation of pension. If that was the object of issuing the notification then the benefit of such notification should be extended to all pensioners who had rendered service earlier in the Central Government or in the autonomous body as the case may be with effect from the date of the said Government order. Now let us take the case of a person who had rendered service under the Central Government between 20 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH January 1, 1953 and July 1, 1955 but who has retired from service of the ICAR in 1985. There is no dispute that such a person gets the benefit of the service put in by him under the Central Government for purposes of his pension. But another pensioner who has put in service under the Central Government during the same period will not get similar concession if he has retired prior to the date of the Government order if Paragraph 7 of that order is applied to him. The result will be that whereas in the first case there is pensionary liability of the Central Government in the second case it does not exist although the period of service under the Central Government is the same. This discrimination arises on account of the Government order. There is no justification for denying the benefit of the Government order to those who had retired prior to the date on which the Government order was issued. The respondents have not furnished any acceptable reason in support of their case, except saying that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Government order because the order says that it would not be applicable to those who had retired prior to the date on which it was issued. In the absence of any explanation which is worthy of consideration it has to be held that the classification of the pensioners who were working in the Government/ autonomous bodies into two classes merely on the basis of the date of retirement as unconstitutional as it bears no nexus to the object to be achieved by the order."
21 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH These judgments would have some relevance if the discrimination was made amongst similarly situated employees, where the classification has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the points that arise for our consideration are:
1) Whether the challenge made by the applicants to Annexure A8 dated 09.03.2021 issued by the ICAR is maintainable?
2) Whether the applicants are entitled to grant of Grade Pay of Rs.6000 (Level-10) with rationalized entry pay of Rs.57,700 (with CAS) considering past service from 01.01.2016 and other consequential benefits as claimed?
Since both the points are inter-related, they are considered together. Broadly, the alleged discrimination in the impugned notification, Annexure A8 are:
i. Discrimination between employees directly under the control of ICAR and the employees attached to non-ICAR - host organization covered under Annexure A8.
ii. Discrimination between the employees recruited before 29.03.2011 and those recruited on or after 29.03.2011.
22 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
15. It is not in dispute that vide OM dated 19.01.2017, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure has issued orders regarding revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the basis of the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission as accepted by the Government of India vide notification dated 25.07.2016 and its subsequent extension to its autonomous bodies vide OM dated 13.01.2017. In terms of the said orders or instructions issued vide notification/resolution/OM the revision of pay will be applicable only in respect of Group 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' employees of administrative, technical and supporting staff of the Council excluding scientific personnel who are covered under UGC pay scale and will also exclude the implementation of the revisions of the 7th Pay Commission for the employees being supported by the ICAR working in the State Agricultural University, since several States have to take the decision regarding the 7th Pay Commission recommendations for their respective State Agricultural Universities, as envisaged in OM dated 19.01.2017. Thus the pay revision of the applicants governed by ICAR was effected in terms of the said OM excluding scientific personnel who are covered under UGC pay scale as well as the employees being supported by the ICAR working in the SAUs. There was a classification between SMS 23 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH coming under the control of ICAR and other KVKs coming under SAUs as could be seen from this OM dated 19.01.2017. However, there was no challenge to the same. It is only on issuing the instructions/guidelines as per Annexure A8 dated 09.03.2021 wherein SMSs recruited before 29.03.2011 coming under SAUs were granted the pay scale of PB-3, Rs.15600-39100 + RGP Rs.6000, but applicants though recruited before 29.03.2011 were not included in Annexure A8, as covered under ICAR, as such the applicants have raised their grievance. Ex-facie, this Annexure A8 dated 09.03.2021 is not applicable to the staff of KVKs coming under the administrative control of ICAR. This alleged discrimination is the basis for the challenge made to Annexure A8 by the applicants.
16. Further the cut of date, 29.03.2011 fixed for granting Grade Pay of Rs.6000 to eligible staff of those KVKs coming under the administrative control of other than ICAR and the eligible staff of those KVKs recruited on or after 29.03.2011, as could be seen from the records, is not a fancy date chosen by the respondents to categorise the staff of those KVKs coming under the direct administrative control of SAUs, CAUs, CU, DUs, State Governments, PSUs, NGOs etc. This 24 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH date has some significance since revised pay scales of the staff of KVKs in terms of recommendations of 6th CPC/UGC was made by the ICAR on 29.03.2011 (Annexure A6). In fixing the revised pay scale itself, a differentiation was made between staff under KVK under ICAR Institute and staff in KVK under an organisation other than ICAR Institute. While fixing Grade Pay of Rs.5400 to SMS/T-6 in KVK under ICAR Institute, it has been specifically made clear that in KVKs sanctioned under a State Agricultural University, the Programme Coordinator/Senior Scientist will be extended replacement scale as applicable to Senior Scientist in ICAR as per UGC scale. In case of other posts in a KVK under SAU scales of pay are to be prescribed by the respective SAU. The liability of ICAR towards payment of pay and allowances will however, be limited to pay scales as per KVKs under ICAR Institutes or actual whichever is less. Thus, if any discrimination is to be alleged in bifurcating SMS staff in KVK coming under an organization other than ICAR Institute, such grievance would have been raised by the staff of those KVKs coming under KVK Organization other than ICAR, but not by the staff of KVK coming under administrative control of ICAR. Though the classification was made on 29.03.2011 as per Annexure A6, no discrimination was alleged at that point of time or 25 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH on 19.01.2017 on these two categories, when OM was issued by the ICAR (Annexure A7) by fixing the pay revision of the staff coming under the direct control of ICAR. As could be seen from the material on record, ICAR and non-ICAR host organization referred to infra, form a separate class by themselves i.e., KVKs under the control of ICAR and KVKs under the control of non-ICAR (Host Organization).
17. The respondents have brought out the distinction between the staff employed directly under ICAR and those attached to different host organization covered under Annexure A8.
Sl. Those employed directly under Those attached to different host No. ICAR- the petitioners' class organization - Those covered under Annexure A-8
1. Are permanent employees have Are temporary employees.
security of job. Their employment is dependent
upon the continuation of the
KVK Scheme/Project, which is
renewed from time to time as
per plan. Therefore they can
be terminated along with non
renewal of the KVK
scheme/project.
26 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. Are appointed by ICAR. Appointed by the respective
Appointing authority is Host Organization. They are
Secretary ICAR employees of the Host
Organisation.
3. Can seek transfer to an ICAR No such transfer option
institute anywhere in Indian available except among the depending upon the availability KVKs of the same Host of vacancy in his/her discipline. Organization. Is employee of Host Organization.
4. Are governed by the Technical Are governed by the rules Service Rules (TSR) of ICAR applicable to the Host and are governed by time Organization. No such time bound promotion policy. They bound promotion, under the belong to T6 Grade under the KVK scheme.
TSR.
5. They are entitled to a number of Are only entitled to DA and service benefits such as HRA under the KVK scheme Transport Allowance, DA, HRA, Medical Reimburse-
ment, LTC, Family Planning,
Allowance, Tuition fee,
Benefits under Welfare fund,
Transfer TA, Retirement
benefits, GPF, Children
Education Allowance,
Newspaper reimbursement etc.
27 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
6. Not drawing Grade Pay of Some were drawing Grade Pay Rs.6000 prior to 29.03.2011. of Rs.6000 prior to 29.03.2011.
18. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the legal principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Shri Justice S.R.Tendolkar and others reported in AIR 1958 SC 538, wherein, classification test has been extensively analysed and said judgment has been consistently followed by the Hon'ble Courts. In the said judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the case of Bhudhan Choudhry vs. The State of Bihar, a Constitution Bench judgment of seven Judges. Further it has been held thus:
"A close perusal of the decisions of this Court in which the above principles have been enunciated and applied by this Court will also show that a statute which may come up for consideration on a question of its validity under Article 14 of the Constitution, may be placed in one or other of the following five classes:-
(i) A statute may itself indicate the persons or things to whom its provisions are intended to apply and the basis of the classification of such persons or things may appear on the face of the statute or may be gathered from the surrounding circumstances known to or brought to the notice of the court. In determining the validity or otherwise of such a statute the court has to examine whether 28 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH such classification is or can be reasonably regarded as based upon some differentia which distinguishes such persons or things grouped together from those left out of the group and whether such differentia has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute, no matter whether the provisions of the statute are intended to apply only to a particular person or thing or only to a certain class of persons or things. Where the court finds that the classification satisfies the tests, the court will uphold the validity of the law, as it did in Chiranjitlal Chowdhri v. The Union of India (1), The State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara (2), Kedar Nath (1) [1950] S.C.R. 869.
........................................................................"
19. It is well settled that while Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different basis, namely, geographical or accordingly to objects or occupations or the like. What 29 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH is necessary is that there 'Must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration,' ( vide Budhan Choudhry vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1955 SCR (1) 1045).
20. In the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Versus National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Association in Civil Appeal No.6764/2021, DD:
23.11.2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the same principles and in para 14 and 15 it has been observed as under:
"14. The equality code in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution prescribes substantive and not formal equality. It is now a settled position that classification per se is not discriminatory and violative of Article 14. Article 14 only forbids class legislation and not reasonable classification. A classification is reasonable, when the twin tests as laid down by Justice SR Das in State of W.B v. Anwar Ali Sarkar are fulfilled:
(i) The classification must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped, from others left out of the group; and
(ii) The differentia must have a rational relationship to the object sought to be achieved by the statute.
30 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
15. Justice Das in Anwar Ali Sarkar (supra) held that there must be some yardstick to differentiate the class included and the others excluded from the group. The differentia used for the classification in the scheme is the total extent of landholding by every individual. Therefore, there is a yardstick used for constituting the class for the purpose of the scheme." Further in Para-28 and 32 it is held thus:
"28. The determination of whether the classification is under- inclusive is closely related to the test that is undertaken by the Court while determining the relationship of the means to the end. This Court follows the two-pronged test to determine if there has been a violation of Article 14. The test requires the court to determine if there is a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Justice P N Bhagwati (as the learned Chief Justice then was) in EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu held that arbitrariness of State action is sufficient to constitute a violation of Article 14. Thus, it came to be recognized that the equality doctrine as envisaged in the Constitution not only guarantees against comparative unreasonableness but also non-comparative unreasonableness. This Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of MP, invoked the proportionality test while testing the validity of the statute and rules that sought to regulate admission, fees and provided reservations for 31 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH postgraduate courses in private educational institutions. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, the Court used the proportionality test to determine if the offence of criminal defamation prescribed under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC violates the freedom of speech and expression under Section 19(1)(a). In Justice Puttaswamy (9J) v. Union of India, a nine judge Bench of this Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. The proportionality standard was used in the context of determining the limits that could be imposed on the right to privacy. The Constitution Bench then dealt with the proportionality test in Justice Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, to determine if the Aadhar scheme violated the right to privacy of an individual. Our Courts have used the proportionality standard to determine non-classificatory arbitrariness, and have used the twin test to determine if the classification is arbitrary.
29. ...............................
30. ................................
31. ................................
32 The nexus test, unlike the proportionality test, is not tailored to narrow down the means or to find the best means to achieve the object. It is sufficient if the means have a 'rational nexus' to the object. Therefore, the courts show a greater degree of deference to cases where the rational nexus test is applied. A greater degree of deference is shown to classification because the 32 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH legislature can classify based on the degrees of harm to further the principle of substantive equality, and such classification does not require mathematical precision. The Indian Courts do not apply the proportionality standard to classificatory provisions. Though the two-judge Bench in Anuj Garg (supra) articulated the proportionality standard for protective discrimination on the grounds in Article 15; and Justice Malhotra in Navtej Singh Johar (supra) held that less deference must be allowed when the classification is based on the 'innate and core trait' of an individual, this is not the case to delve into it. Since the classification in the impugned scheme is based neither on the grounds in Article 15 nor on the 'innate and core trait' of an individual, it cannot be struck down on the alleged grounds of under-inclusiveness and over-inclusiveness."
21. In the light of these judgments referred to supra, reasonable classification which has a nexus to achieve the objects of the statute/Government order are permissible. Hence, non-inclusion of the applicants in Annexure A8 having some nexus to achieve the objects of the KVK Scheme and employees controlled under ICAR forming a separate class, the challenge made to the impugned notification is not sustainable.
33 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
22. Further, there are two classes created in Annexure A8 amongst the staff of the host Organization i.e., staff recruited on or after 29.03.2011 and those recruited before 29.03.2011 w.r.t. whom revised Grade Pay Rs.6000 is fixed. But on conjunctive reading of Annexure A8 with instructions contained in SMD's letter dated 24.02.2020, which is applicable to revision of pay scale to SMS as shown in Annexure A8 with ostrich mark, it is clear that an attempt was made to remove the existing anomaly in the pay scale of SMSs working in KVKs working under ICAR and SAUs and also adoption of revised pay scales of 7th Pay commission. The SMD's letter dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure R4) referred to in Annexure A8 reads thus:
"It has come to notice that there is an issue the pay scale of SMSs in KVKs under SAUs. In this regard, it is explained here that ICAR in its order dated 29.03.2022 for the first time had provided Rs.5400/- Grade Pay for the SMSs working in KVKs managed by ICAR Institutions. It resulted in two implications for the SAUs. One, the order will not affect those SMSs working in KVKs of SAUs recruited before March 29, 2011 and if SMSs were appointed in the Grade Pay of Rs.6000/- they may continue to get related promotion and other benefits through CAS. Second, after March 29, 2011, if any SAU opts to continue deputing/recruiting SMS with higher qualifications than that of 34 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH SMS and at par with teachers in the Grade Pay of Rs.6000, then in that case, the liability of ICAR will be limited to pay the salary benefits as admissible for Rs.5400/- Grade Pay only and the consequential additional amount will be required to be borne by the University/State."
23. In this background, in paragraph-3 of Annexure A8, it has been reiterated that the revisions are permissible as per scales of different positions prescribed in ICAR. Any enhancement in respect of pay revision over the ICAR prescribed scale will be borne by the host organization. The liability of ICAR towards payment of pay and allowances will, however, be limited to pay scales as per KVKs under ICAR Institutes or actual, whichever is less. These classes of MOU entered with non-ICAR host organizations, throws light on the financial implications on ICAR. As such higher pay scale recruited above Grade Pay of Rs.5400 to be paid by the ICAR has to be borne by the host organizations. Be that as it may, the said issue becomes academic in the present OA, as the applicants are the staff of KVKs controlled by ICAR and they have no locus to challenge Annexure A8.
35 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
24. However, in view of R.S.Paroda's High Power Committee's report and the speech of the Hon'ble Agricultural Minister, recommendations for maintaining uniformity ought to have been considered to ensure parity across teaching, research and extension positions. Paragraph -5 of the report of the High Power Committee on Management of Krishi Vigyan Kendra (R.S.Paroda's Committee report) reads thus:
"5. Further, all subject Matter Specialists in Indian Council of Agricultural Research/State Agriculture Universities/Non- governmental Organization/State Government Krishi Vigyan Kendras should henceforth be redesignated uniformly as Scientist/Assistant Professor (PB-3 Rs.15600-39100 with GP Rs.6000) to ensure much needed parity across teaching, research and extension positions."
25. Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture (Central) in his speech dated 26.07.2015 (Annexure A23) referred to supra has observed that "In Krishi Vigyan Kendras the Subject Matter Specialist (SMS) posts have been converted into posts of 'Scientist' with equal benefits conferred upon them." In addition to 2900 Crores to be given for the functioning of the Krishi Vigyan Kendras as approved by the Indian government's Cabinet." Having regard to these aspects, the respondents would have 36 OA 604/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH taken some steps to examine the effect of these reports but merely on the assurances given by the Hon'ble Minister in KVKs National Convention, the applicants claim cannot be considered in this application. The applicants are at liberty to move before the respondents. Reserving such liberty, for the reasons aforesaid, OA stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.