Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Prajneshu S/O Sh. H.C. Gupta And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, ... on 13 February, 2008
ORDER Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
1. This O.A. has been filed by 31 applicants, who have sought permission of the Court to allow them to file this OA in a representative capacity so that whatever decision is taken, it may be applied to all other Scientists of ICAR, whether serving or retired. They have sought the following relief:
to quash letter dated 12.12.2006 whereby respondents have denied the benefit of two advance increments to the applicants.
To declare that by issue of clarifications dated 28.3.2001 and 14.11.2005, the original scheme dated 27.2.1999 is no longer an incentive scheme.
To give direction to the respondents to give benefit of two advance increments w.e.f. 27.7.1998 to the applicants and other similarly situated employees working/retired as Principal Scientists/Senior Scientists and joined ICAR after completing their Ph.D earlier to any one of Principal Scientist/Senior Scientists who got similar benefit by virtue of acquiring Ph.D during service career.
2. It is stated by applicants that some of them are presently working as Principal Scientists in the Agricultural Research Service and are posted at various Institutes, while some of them have retired, but they are being discriminated against inasmuch as they joined the service with Ph.D degree, yet no advance increment is being paid to them; while those Principal Scientists who had completed their Ph. D during their service career even prior to 1998 are being given the benefit of two advance increments at the level of Principal Scientist as a result of which a person who was junior to the applicants is drawing more pay than what they are getting. This action of respondents is discriminatory and is not sustainable in law.
3. Counsel for applicants submitted that initially O.M. dated 27.2.1999 was issued by respondents (ICAR) for revising the pay scale of Scientists pursuant to the recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission. In the said OM in para (ii) certain incentives were given to those Scientists who possessed Ph.D and M.Phil degrees. According to it even those Scientists who already had completed their Ph.D and M.Phil degrees were to be given 4 and 2 advance increments respectively. However, those Scientists who acquire Ph.D within two years of recruitment were to be given one increment and a Scientist with Ph.D degree was said to be eligible for two advance increments when he moves into the Selection Grade as Sr. Scientist. It was further stated that a Scientist will be eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires Ph.D degree in his service career (page 76 at 78). However, by a subsequent letter dated 28.3.2001, it was clarified that there would be no objection to granting two advance increments for acquiring Ph.D degree at any time in the service career of a Scientist, but benefit can be given only from the date from which the benefit other than pay scale is made applicable i.e. 27.7.1998 (or the date of acquisition of degree whichever is later). If it was after 27.7.1998 provided Ph.D degree was not a must/minimum eligibility condition for recruitment/appointment (page 81). Another clarification was issued on 14.11.2005 (page 84) whereby it was further clarified that incentive would be allowed to all those who acquired Ph. D degree during service career in an uniform manner with actual benefits from the cut off date viz. 27.07.1998. Accordingly, all the Scientists (including Sr. Scientists, Principal Scientists and RMPs), who acquired Ph. D degree during service even prior to 1.1.1996 and who were not given the benefit of any advance increments as per earlier Scheme, may be given the benefit of two advance increments provided such persons were in service as on 27.7.1998.
4. Applicants herein are the persons who already had Ph.D degree with them at the time of entry in service. They also gave representations that they should also be given two advance increments for possessing Ph.D degree. However, their representations were rejected vide order dated 12.12.2006 (page 37) by observing as follows:
that there was no incentive for having Ph. D. degree at the time of appointment to the post of Scientist Grade S-1 prior to 1.1.86 as per instructions in vogue. The incentive came only from 1.1.86 in the UGC package with the specific objective of attracting Ph.D holders to join service as Scientist and to encourage non-Ph.D's in the service to acquire Ph.D degree. So, there does not semblance any justification for extending them an incentive which did not exist in their case. Likewise, there is no justification for this incentive in case of those who joined the scientific service of ICAR with Ph.D degree on posts for which Ph. D was the minimum essential qualification for appointment.
It is in these circumstances, that applicants have filed the present O.A.
5. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that the word 'incentive', as per The New Collins Concise Dictionary means motivating influence/an additional payment made to employees to increase production. Similarly, in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, the word 'incentive' is described as a thing that motivates or encourages someone to do something, a payment or concession to stimulate greater output or investment. He thus submitted that since it is called 'incentive' it could have been operated only prospectively from the date the said Scheme was introduced i.e. 27.2.1999. However, since by subsequent clarification, this was decided to be given, even to those persons, who had completed their Ph.D degree during their service career even prior to 27.02.1999, it no longer remained as an incentive but it is now being given as an extra remuneration for possessing Ph.D degree. If that be so, since applicants also possess Ph.D degree, the same benefit should be given to them also. He invited my attention to page 87 where a comparison has been drawn between Dr. Prajneshu and Dr. Ranjana Agarwal. Dr. Prajneshu, who is one of the applicants in this OA, joined as Scientist S-3 on 30.3.1982 and Dr. Ranjana Agarwal also joined as a Scientist S-3 on selection on 9.8.1995 yet at the level of Principal Scientist, the salary drawn by Dr. Ranjana Agarwal is Rs. 20,000/- as on 27.7.1998 while Dr. Prajneshu is drawing only Rs. 19,100-/ as on 27.7.1998. It is submitted by the counsel for applicants that Dr. Ranjana Agarwal had done her Ph.D in 1983, i.e. before being selected as Scientist S-3 and before this incentive was introduced. If she could be given two advance increments for possessing Ph.D degree, there is no justification why the same should not be given to the applicants also. Counsel for applicants also placed reliance on judgment dated 8th August, 2007 given in OA No. 280/2005 in the case of Dr. B. Sasi Kumar v. ICAR and Ors. delivered by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal and judgment dated 26.11.2007 given by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the same case in Writ Petition No. 34046 of 2007 whereby the judgment of Ernakulam Bench has been upheld. He thus submitted that since present OA is a covered case, it may be decided in terms of said judgment.
6. Respondents, on the other hand, have taken preliminary objection to the maintainability of the O.A. in a representative capacity. They have submitted that Scientist S-1 form a different and separate class because requirement for S-1 category is Master's Degree while for recruitment to S-3 category, the minimum requirement is Ph.D degree. Scientists belonging to S-1category are given higher benefits as they acquired higher qualification and ICAR being a research institute, acquisition of knowledge is rightly being given a premium. This advance increment has a reasonable nexus to the object of having knowledgeable and technically qualified specialist Scientist. Therefore, the said policy does not suffer from any infirmity and cannot be questioned on the ground of its being violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.
7. They have further explained that for the Scientific category, Agricultural Research Service was constituted w.e.f. 01.10.1975. Till 31.12.1985, the Scientists of ICAR were governed by Central pay scales and five yearly assessment scheme as provided in the ARS Rules. The nomenclature of the post was S-1 (Rs.700-1300), S-2 (Rs.1100-1600), S-3 (Rs.1500-2000), S-4 (Rs.1800-2250), S-5 (Rs.2000-2500) and S-6 (Rs.2500-3000). The initial entry grade was Scientist (S-1) in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1300, which was filled by direct recruitment through open competitive ARS examination. The minimum essential qualification for appointment to Scientist (S -1) was Master's degree. There was no provision for grant of advance increments to those who joined with higher qualifications viz. Ph.D/M.Phil. Degrees. On demand by the Scientists of ICAR, the Government of India agreed to adopt the UGC pay scales and Career Advancement Scheme as notified by UGC/MHRD for the teachers of Universities and Colleges under UGC, for the Scientists of ICAR w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Initially the Scheme dated 27.02.1999 included following incentive for Ph.D/M.Phil Degree holders:
Four and two advance increments will be admissible to those who hold Ph.D and M.Phil Degrees respectively at the time of recruitment as Scientist.
One increment will be admissible to those Scientists with M.Phil degree, who acquire Ph.D within two years of recruitment.
A Scientist with Ph.D will be eligible for two advance increments when he moves into the Selection Grade as Sr. Scientist.
A Scientist will be eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires Ph.D degree in his service career.
In the meanwhile, UGC vide their letter dated 31.8.2001 extended the benefit of two advance increments w.e.f. 27.7.1998 to all teachers, who acquired Ph.D Degree during service career even prior to 1.1.1996 and who were not given the benefit of any advance increments as per para 8 (d) above. The matter was re-examined by the Government of India in totality, taking into consideration the clarification issued by UGC vide letter dated 31.8.2001 and it was decided to allow the incentive of two advance increments to all those who acquired Ph. D degree during service career in an uniform manner with actual benefits from the cut off date viz. 27.7.1998. This was clarified by the Council vide circular dated 14.11.2005.
8. The respondents have thus submitted that there is no question of discrimination. The fact is that to motivate the candidates to complete Ph.D degree before joining the service in view of the UGC guidelines of 1.1.1986, it was decided to give three advance increments for joining with Ph.D degree at S-1 level w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The incentive was increased to four advance increments w.e.f. 27.7.1998 as per revised Career Advancement Scheme. At this stage, it was also decided to motivate the in-service non-Ph.D Scientists by granting two advance increments to complete Ph.D degree any time during service period. Thus, the incentive of 2 advance increments for acquiring Ph.D degree was allowed at the level of Scientist. This was not admissible to those who joined with Ph.D degree at S-1 level prior to 1.1.1986 under ARS Rules. The incentive of two advance increments cannot be given to the applicants, who joined with Ph.D degree prior to 1.1.1986 as the incentive was not available as per prevailing instructions.
9. They have also submitted that the comparison shown by the applicants in para 5.12 are absolutely misplaced because applicant No. 1 was directly recruited as Scientist S-3 in a higher pay scale, whereas Dr. H.V.L. Bathla was appointed as Scientist S-1 on 1.10.1975 in a lower pay scale. The post for which Ph.D degree is an essential qualification, gets higher pay scale along with other benefits. Applicants, therefore, neither can compare themselves with Scientists nor be allowed to claim additional incentive for having acquired Ph.D degree before joining the service. They have thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
10. I have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings as well. It is seen that even the initial Scheme of 27.2.1999 whereby incentive was introduced for the first time, it was meant for Scientists for which minimum eligibility qualification is Master's degree; whereas there are posts in higher grade where Ph.D is the requisite qualification for entering into service. I would agree with the respondents to the extent that such of the persons who joined at such levels, where Ph.D is the minimum requisite qualification, they cannot demand 2 advance increments as an incentive. However, grievance of applicants seems to be that by further liberalizing the Scheme, there has been disparity in pay fixation, as it has been allowed to even those who had earlier acquired Ph.D but on 27.7.1998 were Principal Scientists and yet junior to applicants are drawing more than them. It is seen, no individual details of each applicant have been given as to which level they joined the respondents and whether it was pre-requisite for them to have Ph.D at that level. On the contrary, different applicants had joined the respondents at different levels, therefore, in the absence of such details O.A. in a representative capacity would not be maintainable. Each case would have to be considered in individual capacity because their main grievance seems to be disparity, which has arisen in the fixation of pay as a result of liberalization of incentive Scheme. In such type of cases, no general direction can be issued nor OA is maintainable in a representative manner. There may be some genuine cases but each person would have to demonstrate how he is aggrieved qua a third person by giving full details.
11. In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, this O.A. is disposed off by giving liberty to the applicants or other aggrieved persons to file independent cases if so advised.
12. I have been informed that the matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in as much as notice has already been issued on 28.01.2008, therefore, once the matter is decided finally by Hon'ble Supreme Court even respondents would be bound by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. With liberty, O.A. is disposed off. No order as to costs.