Civil Appeal No 2736 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 5101990 of the Central Administrative Tribunal New Delhi in OA No 1510 of 1990
MK Ramamurthy Raj Kumar Mehta and Ms Mona Chakraborty for the Appellants
RK Jain Arun Jaitley Mahesh Srivastava Vishnu Mathur AK Sikri and Ms Madhu Sikri for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL J
The appellants who are Scientists working in various Institutes under Indian Council of Agricultural Research in short ICAR  throughout the country have filed this appeal against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal New Delhi dated 5101990
Some of the appellants had filed a Writ Petition No 550 of 1990 before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the notification issued by the ICAR dated 931989 and for other connected reliefs
This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by order dated 351990 in the following manner The main relief which the petitioners ask for in this writ petition is about revision of pay scale and other connected service benefits
When we suggested to learned counsel that the matter should go before the Central Administrative Tribunal he has indicated certain difficulties which are like the officers being spread over in different parts of the country and the difficulty in coordinating the cases for disposal in case they are required to go before the Tribunal and the fact that there may be inordinate delay in disposal and in obtaining the relief
We are of the view that the matter can be appropriately considered by the Tribunal for overcoming the difficulties indicated by Mr Sanghi we direct the Central Administrative Tribunal to treat the petition that is going to be filed at the Principal Bench at Delhi as the representative petition and dispose of the same within six months from the date it is filed
This petition is allowed to be withdrawn In pursuance to the above order dated 351990 some of the appellants filed an application No 1510 of 1990 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act before the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench Delhi
The Tribunal treated the aforesaid application as having been filed in representative capacity of S 2 and S 3 Officers of the ICAR pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in its order dated 351990
In order to appreciate the controversy we shall state the facts in brief
The Imperial Council of Agricultural Research a Society established under the Societies Registration Act in the year 1929 was redesignated as the Indian Council of Agricultural Research after the advent of independence
Till 1965 the ICAR was largely functioning as a coordinating agency and apex body for financing research project
With effect from 1966 administrative control over the Indian Agricultural Research Institute IARI and other such Institutes was transferred to ICAR simultaneously placing the staff of such Institutes at the disposal of the ICAR
A department of Agricultural Research and Education was set up in the Ministry of Agriculture and the said department came into existence on 15121973
The ICAR is fully financed by the Department of Agricultural Research and Education DARE Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation Government of India
ICAR follows the rules of Government of India Mutatis Mutandis
The ICAR has been held to be State  within the meaning Article 12 of the Constitution as per the judgement of this Court in the case of PK Iyer  Others vs Union of Indian  Others reported in  The ICAR started an Agricultural Research Service in short ARS  with effect from 1101975 and the relevant grades and pay scales as on 31121985 are given as under  Grades Pay scales Scientist S Rs 550 990 Scientist S 1 Rs 700 1300 Scientist S 2 Rs 1100 1600 Scientist S 3 Rs 1500 2000 The Scientists of the ICAR who were earlier covered by the Third Pay Commission pay scales had been demanding parity in pay scales with the employees of the Agricultural Universities who were also financed by the ICAR
After persistent demand the ICAR agreed to revise the pay scales with effect from 111986 vide notification No1 1487 Per
IV dated 9th March 1989
According to the appellants the aforesaid notification though benefited some of the Scientists but was denying the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work  in the case of the appellants and the like and the said notification had further placed persons much junior to many of the appellants in a higher scale of pay resulting in violation of the fun damental rights of the appellants guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
In order to appreciate the grievances of the appellants the pay scales as revised by the ICAR vide the impugned notification dated 931989 are given as under  SNo
Grade Existing New Revised pay pay scale designation scale 1
Scientist S 2 Rs1100 50 Scientist Rs 3000 100 with total ser 1600 Senior 3500 125 5000 vice in the scale ARS as on 31121985 upto 8 years 2
Scientist S 2 Rs 1100 50 Scientist Rs 3700 125 with total 1600 Selection 4950 150 5700 service in the Grade ARS as on 311285 exceeding 8 years 3
Scientist S 3 Rs 1500 60 Scientist Rs 3700 125 with total ser 1800 100 2000 Selection 4950 150 5700 vice in the Grade ARS as on 311285 upto 16 years 4
Scientist S 3 Rs 1500 50 Principal Rs 4500 150 with total 1800 100 2000 Scientist 5700 200 7300 service in the ARS or equivalent grades as on 311285 exceeding 16 years Certain clarifications were issued to the above notification vide letter No 1 1487 Per
IV Vol
III dated 3131989 order No 1 789 Per
IV Vol
III dated 1461989 order No 1 789 per
IV dated 6111989 Vol III and order No 1 789 Per
IV dated 671990
The case of the appellants is that according to the impugned notification dated 931989 together with subsequent clarifications Scientists S 3 in pre revised scale of Rs 1500 2000 having completed total service in the ARS as on 31121985 exceeding 16 years had been placed in the scale of Rs 4500 7300 whereas Scientists S 3 who were in the same pre revised scale of Rs 1500 2000 but had put in total service in the ARS as on 31121985 upto 16 years have been placed in the scale of Rs 3700 5700
Similarly Scientists S 2 who were in the pre revised scale of Rs1100 1600 and had completed total service of more than 8 years than in the ARS as on 31121985 have been put in the scale of Rs 3700 5700 but those having completed total service upto 8 years as on 31121985 had been put in the scale of Rs 3000 5000
According to the appellants by the impugned notification dated 931989 in the guise of revision of pay scales altogether new gradesdesignations have also been created as under  S Grade Existing designation New designation No 1
Scientist S 2 with Scientist S 2 Scientist Senior total service in Scale ARS as on 31121985 upto 8 years 2
Scientist S 2 with Scientist S 2 Scientist Selection total service in Grade ARS as on 31121985 exceeding 8 years 3
Scientist S 3 with Scientist S 3 Scientist Selection total service in Grade ARS as on 31121985 upto 16 years 4
Scientist S 3 with Scientist S 3 Principal Scientist total service in ARS or equivalent Grades as on 31121985 exceeding 16 years It has been further submitted by the appellants that in the ICAR there were two streams for career advancement of the Scientists
The slower stream is the five yearly assessment and the faster one is the direct selection through advertisement to various posts at All India level
In the direct selection the existing Scientists can also compete with the other
Scientists from non lCAR Institutions
The requirements for assessment and direct selection are different as illustrated below by the appellants  Suppose a Scientist with Ph D qualification joins as S 1 it will take for him at least 11 years to become S 3 through assessment whereas if he had only 7 years  experience and good merit he could be directly selected as S 3
So it takes 4 years less for a Scientist to become directly recruited S 3 as compared to his counterparts who got S 3 through assessment scheme
This fact has been completely ignored by the ICAR while revising the pay scale in which the requirement of total length of service was kept same for Scientists of both the streams
This is the reason why many of the Scientists who were selected directly as S 2S 3 taking lesser time to attain higher grades have been denied their due in the impugned revision of pay scales
 It has been further submitted on behalf of the appellants that the criterion of eight years of qualifying service for getting the scale of Rs3700 5700 and 16 years of qualifying service for getting the scale of Rs 4500 7300 completely ignores the period of service put in the grade of S 2 or S 3 respectively
This clearly shows the utter disregard for merit and competence of the Scientists working on these posts of S 2 or S 3
The impugned notification is not only unreasonable and discriminatory but has resulted in grave injustice to the Scientists directly selected as Scientists S 2 and S 3 by taking into consideration the total length of service in the ARS as the only criterion thereby giving a complete go bye to merit and competence
It has been further submitted that before the issuance of the impugned notification Scientists S 2 who had put in upto 8 years service and those who had put in exceeding 8 years service had the same designation namely Scientist S 2 and were performing the same nature of work and duties
After the impugned notification they have been reclassified in two categories namely Scientist Senior Scale and Scientist Selection Grade and have been put in different pay scales though their nature of work and duties still continue to remain the same
It has been similarly pointed out that prior to the issuance of the impugned notification Scientists S 3 who had put in upto 16 years of service and those having put in more than 16 years had the same designation of Scientist S 3 and their nature of work and duties were also the same
Now by virtue of the impugned notification Scientists S 3 have been reclassified into two categories namely Scientist Selection Grade and Principal Scientist and have been given different scales of pay though their nature of work and duties still continue to remain the same
It has thus been submitted that as a result of the impugned notification juniors and less meritorious Scientists and who were also drawing lesser basic pay as on 31121985 than the appellants have been placed in higher pay scales causing great resentment amongst a large number of Scientists including the appellants
The appellants have further illustrated the injustice and arbirtrainess in the application of the impugned notification in the following manner  ILLUSTRATION I DATE OF Scale Scale APPOINTMENT Class II Scien Scien Scien as as on Gaze tist tist tist on 111986 tted S 1 S 2 S 3 311285 as per the impugned Notification Scientist A 30465 910
1776 1185 Rs Rs
Dr GC 74 1500 4500 Sharma 2000 7300 Scientist B 1776 24379 61279 Rs Rs Dr Sheo 5700 It would thus be seen that although Scientist B got the S 3 grade much before Scientist A and both were in the same scale as on 31121985 by the impugned notification Scientist A has been given the higher scale of Rs 4500 7300 with effect from 111986 whereas Scientist B has been put in the lower scale of Rs 3700 5700
ILLUSTRATION II DATE OF APPOINTMENT Scale Scale Scientist S 1 1 Scientist 1 S 2 as on as per 311285 impugned Notification Scientist A 1976 171985 Rs Rs Ms Pratibha 1100 3700 Shukla 1600 5700 Scientist B 22778 Rs
Rs Shri BS joined 1100 3000 Modi directly as S 2 1600 5000 The above illustration would show that while Scientist B got the S 2 grade much earlier than Scientist A and both were in the same scale as on 31121985 by the impugned notification Scientist A has been placed in the higher scale of Rs 3700 5700 wef
111986 and Scientist B has been given lower scale of Rs 3000 5000
 On the other hand it has been contended on behalf of the respondents
that on persistent demand of the appellants and other Scientists for giving them better pay scales than those recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission the Government introduced University Grants Commission in short UGC  pay package for them
The designations of Scientists on various grounds have been suitably amended so as to conform to their respective level of responsibility
In the UGC revised scales there is no singleuniform revised scale for servicing S 2 and S 3 Scientists
However there is provision for specific placement of Scientists S 2 and S 3 in the UGC scales by virtue of their length of service as on 31121985
Thus as per the scheme concurred in by the Ministry of Finance Scientist S 2 having less than 8 years of service as on 31121985 have been placed in the revised scale of Rs 3000 5000 whereas those having more than 8 years Of prescribed service as on 31121985 have been placed in the scale of Rs 3700 5700
Similarly in case of S 3 Scientists the period of service as on 31121985 has been taken as 16 years and as such those having more than 16 years of service as on 31121985 have been put in the scale of Rs 4500 7300 and those upto 16 years have been placed in the scale of Rs 3700 5700
Thus prescribing the aforesaid pay scales on the pattern of UGC as per the demand of the Scientists themselves the above fixation of pay scales is perfectly valid and proper
It has been further submitted that injustice done to some of the incumbents in introducing a new scheme cannot be a reason for setting aside the whole scheme
It has been further submitted that they have formulated model recruitment rules on the pattern of UGC
Some difficulties have been experienced while prescribing the experience of 3 5 6 years as Principal Scientists for recruitment to the higher posts
Efforts are being made to devise means by which the affected Scientists may be able to take their chance for appointment to higher management positions
We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the record
It is no doubt correct that while introducing a new scheme of pay scales and fixing new grades of posts some of the incumbents may have to put to less advantageous position than others but at the same time the granting of new pay scales cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily and cannot create a situation in which the juniors may become senior of vice versa
Admittedly the Scientists working in the ICAR had made a grievance for the revision of their pay scales and the Government being satisfied with their grievances had appointed various expert Committees such as MV Rao Committee NGP Rao Committee Menon Committee and GVR Rao Committee for improvement of service conditions of the Scientists working in the ICAR
Government had notified a set of pay scales for the Universities in 1988 known as UGC Scales
MV Rao Committee which was set up by the Government to go into the pay scales of ARS Scientists had recommended the application of the UGC Scales to the ARS Scientists
So far as the recommendations of the aforementioned expert Committees are concerned learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that none of the recommendations made by such Committees laid down any criteria of 8 years or 16 years of service for giving higher pay scales in the case of incumbents holding the same S 2 or S 3 grade in the ICAR
The respondents in their counter affidavit have admitted that S 1 S 2 and S 3 are equivalent to that of Lecturer Reader and Professor respectively
Dr MVRao Committee after considering the facts that the ICAR has the role of UGC in agricultural education recommended that the ICAR being an apex organisation in the country for agricultural education research and extension should have the pay scales at least at par with the State Agricultural Universities
Dr MV Rao Committee s recommendations were accepted by the Central Government and a policy decision was taken on 13101988 to the effect that UGC package may be extended to ICAR Scientists engaged in teaching research and extension
It may be further noted that prior to the impugned notification dated 931989 there were four grades of Scientists namely Scientist S S 1 S 2 and S 3 apart from other higher grades with which we are not presently concerned
So far as the lowest grade of Scientist is concerned which has been named as Experimental Scientist in the impugned notification is a dying cadre
Now so far as 8 Scientist S 1 is concerned he has been given the revised pay scale of Rs2200 4000 and there is no controversy about it
The controversy is about Scientists S 2 and S 3
All Scientists S 2 were in the same pay scale of Rs 1100 1600 prior to the introduction of the revised pay scales by the impugned notification dated 931989
By the impugned notification post of Scientist S 2 has been bifurcated in two grades as Scientist Senior Scale in the pay scale of Rs 3000 5000 and Scientist Selection Grade in the pay scale of Rs 3700 5700
Similarly in the case of Scientist S 3 which had a common pay scale of Rs 1500 2000 has now been bifurcated as Scientist Selection Grade in the pay scale of Rs 3700 5700 and Principal Scientist in the pay scale of Rs 4500 7300
The basis for giving higher pay scales has been taken as period of total service in ARS as 8 years in the case of Scientist S 2 and 16 years in the case of Scientist S 3
It would have been correct in case the recruitment to such posts of S 2 and S 3 had been made purely on the basis of seniority and length of service in ARS
But the admitted position is that such posts of Scientists S 2 and S 3 were also filled by direct recruitment from public as well as by merit cum seniority from amongst the members of the Agricultural Research Service
Thus the anomalous situation created is amply illustrated by the examples of Dr GC Sharma and Dr Sheo Raj in the case of S 3 and the case of Ms Pratibha Shukla and Shri BS Modi in the case of Scientist S 2
Dr Sheo Raj came to be appointed as a Scientist S 3 on 6121979 while Dr GC Sharma came to be appointed as Scientist S 3 as late as on 111985
Admittedly on 31121985 both were in the scale of Rs 1500 2000
Now on the basis of the impugned notification Dr GC Sharma gets the pay scale of Rs 4500 7300 as Principal Scientist while Dr Sheo Raj is fixed in the pay scale of Rs 3700 5700 as Scientist Selection Grade
Similar is the case of Shri BS Modi and Ms Pratibha Shukla in S 2
Shri Arun Jaitley Leaned senior counsel appearing for the ICAR which tried hard but in vain to justify such disparity which is totally arbitrary and unreasonable
It does not stand to reason that Dr Sheo Raj having been appointed as Scientist S 3 on merit as back as on 6121979 is fixed in the new pay scale of Rs 3700 5700 while Dr GC Sharma who became Scientist S 3 as late as on 111985 is fixed in the pay scale of Rs 4500 7300
Similarly in the case of the incumbents on the post of Scientist S 2 Shri NS Modi having appointed by direct recruitment on 2271975 has been fixed in the new pay scale of Rs 3000 5000 as Scientist Senior Scale while Ms Pratibha Shukla who came to be appointed as Scieutist S 2 on 171985 has been fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs 2700 5700 as Scientist Selection Grade
In our view the appellants are justified in their submission that they were also entitled to the higher pay scale on the post of Scientist S 2 as well as S 3 specially when they were recruited on these posts much earlier to those who have now become entitled to higher pay scales under the impugned notification
They are also right in their submission that it also mars their future chances of promotion on the higher posts
The following observations made by the Tribunal itself shows the justification of the demand made by the appellants  The respondents have admitted in their counter affidavit that certain anomalies have been created by the new scheme and that they are trying to rectify the same
They have issued orders allowing directly recruited S 2 and S 3 Scientists certain wetihtage for a period of service rendered by them for placement in the higher scale as on 111986
They have also stated that they are devising means by which the affected Scientists may be able to take their chance for appointment to higher management positions     
In the instant case by applying the principle of length of service in the ARS irrespective of the grades in which the officers were hitherto working a large number of erstwhile seniors will be rendered juniors and they will now be entitled to only lower pay scales than their erstwhile juniors
This would also adversely affect their eligibility for promotion from 111986
In case they were eligible to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade under the old dispensation it will be unjust and inequitable to render them ineligible for such promotion against the existing vacancies proposed to be filled up
It is however for the respondents to devise suitable steps including grant of one time relaxation andor appropriate weightage to the applicants and those similarly situated so as to make them eligible to appear before the Selection Board for the various posts already advertised
 It may be noted that the Tribunal itself had found force and justification in the grievances made by the appellants and had granted 6 month s time to the respondents to take appropriate action
We had also granted opportunities to the respondents to come with a scheme granting appropriate relief to the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case but till the matter was finally heard by us the respondents were unable to come out with any concrete proposal or scheme redressing the grievances of the appellants
The appellants are Scientists who are rendering great service to the nation and we find no justification as to why the appellants or any other Scientists in ICAR placed in similar position like the appellants should be deprived the benefit of the revised pay scales on the higher post of S 2 or S 3 in case they were appointed by direct recruitment or by selection on merit cum seniority on the post of Scientist S 2 or S 3 prior to those who have now become entitled to higher pay scale under the impugned notification dated 931989
We therefore allow this appeal and direct the respondents to issue appropriate orders so that any of the appellants or the like working as Scientist S 2 or S 3 on or before 31121985 earlier to anyone of the Scientists getting benefit of the revised pay scales under the impugned notification dated 931989 also get a similar benefit of revised pay scale of Rs4500 7300 in the case of S 3 and pay scale of Rs3700 5700 in the case of S 2
Such revised pay scales shall be given from 11986 as given to S 2 and S 3 Scientists under the impugned notification
The respondents are directed to take suitable action in this regard and to pay the entire amount within six months from the date of this order
In the facts and circumstances of the case we pass no order as to costs
NVK Appeal allowed


Summary:
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued in respect of certain lands including the lands belonging to the appellant foundation situated at two different places
The appellant Foundation filed objections
Subsequently notifications under Sections 6 and Notices under Sections 9 and 10 were also issued
The appellant Foundation challenged the notifications in respect of the land situated at one of the two places by way of a Writ Petition before the High Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter in a suit
Thereupon the appellant Foundation filed a suit and the same was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court
The Letters Patent Appeal filed against that decision is pending
In respect of the land situated at the other place a Writ Petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court which came to be dismissed as withdrawn
Thereafter another Writ Petition was filed by the appellant Foundation before the High Court challenging the notifications
The High Court having dismissed the Writ Petition the appellant Foundation preferred the present appeal
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that they filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act but the same were rejected without affording any opportunity of personal hearing and the denial of such opportunity invalidated the notifications and that the land of the appellants being wakf property it ought to have been excluded on the basis of the notification under Section 4 of the Act
Alternatively it was contended that the appellant has been running several educational institutions on the very land and that if the exemption for wakf property is not applicable to such educational and charitable institutions run by Hindus or non Muslims then such a notification would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
The Respondents contested the appeal on grounds of delay laches and acquiescence in fling the Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings
It was also stated that the appellants were given opportunity of personal hearing
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD 1
The conduct of the appellants in raising the plea that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellants in respect of the objections filed under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was totally baseless and factually incorrect and such conduct is reprehensible
It is well settled that a person invoking an equitable extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under article 226 of the Constitution is required to come with clean hands and should not conceal the material facts
431 F G Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad  Anr
vs Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad  Anr 1977 1 SCR 71 referred to 2
The challenge to the acquisition proceedings was mainly based on the ground that in the notification dated 13111959 issued under Section 4 of the Act the lands of wakf property were excluded and the lands of the appellants being also used for educational and charitable purposes the same were also liable to be excluded
At a later stage a ground was also taken that if wakf property in the aforesaid notification under Section 4 of the Act meant only wakf properties of the Mohammedans then such notification was discriminatory and violative under article 14 of the Constitution as there was no reasonable ground to discriminate such properties of Hindus or non Muslims meant for charitable purposes
Thus the challenge was in respect of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act alone and though in the prayer clause relief has been sought to quash the notification under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act also which were issued in 1972 no ground whatsoever has been pleaded in the writ petition nor raised in the present appeal as to how the notifications under Sections 9 and 10 had any concern for explaining the delay in respect of the Challenge to notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act Admittedly the notices under sections 9 and 10 issued appellants in 1972 were in respect of a portion of the land
The challenge on the other Land in the writ petition is in respect of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 covering the entire land
There is no justification at all in explaining the delay on the ground that no award has been passed nor the appellants have been dispossessed so far
This cannot be an explanation for not challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and in the present case the appellants had themselves sought stay from this Court as early as 15111978 for not making and declaring the award and not to dispossess the appellants
Thus there is no justification at all for the delay in not challenging the notification issued under Section 4 on 13111959 till 1973
Even notifications under Section 6 of the Act were issued in 1968 and 1969 but not challenged till 1973
435 H 436 A G Aflatoon  Ors
vs Lt Governor Delhi  Ors 2975 1 SCR 802 relied on