it Petition Civil No 10 18 of 1989
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Ranjit Kumar for the Petitioner
AD Singh NP RB Misra and Ms A Subhashini NP for the Respondents
The Order of the Court was delivered by MISRA J This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution and the President of the National Council of Bio Medical Scientists is the petitioner
The reliefs asked for are on the allegation that the Group A  scientists of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare who are the mem bers of the Council are being discriminatingly treated they have not been given any promotional benefits and therefore there is a large scale stagnation in the service
It has been alleged that the Group A  scientists are re cruited through the Union Public Service Commission
These scientists possess a Master Degree in the relevant disci plines and 3 years  experience to entitle them to be re cruited
It has been indicated in a chart filed along with the Writ Petition that the total posts in this category are 243 including post of Drug Controller of India
The promo tional posts available are filled up by direct recruitment and open competition and there is no promotional channel provided
Similar scientists in other Ministries such as Ministry of Science and Technology Ministry of Defence Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Oceanography are recruited in terms of rules made under the proviso to Arti cle 309 of the Constitution and for their Group A  scien tific and technical officers promotional avenues are avail able
The petition further alleges that on their representa tions from time to 179 time meetings have been held but decisions taken in such meetings have not been given effect to and therefore all the representations have gone unheeded
Particular reference has been made to the Minutes of a meeting held on 155
1989 where Shri Basudeven Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare presided several officers from different wings of the Ministry attended and representatives of the petitioner s Council participated
It has been al leged that though several demands were pressed by the repre sentatives of the Council only a few were considered and yet there was no follow up action for their implementation
Notice was issued to the Union of India in the Minis tries of Health Human Resources Science and Technology and Bio Technology and the notice indicated that the matter would be taken up for final disposal
Though no return has been filed to the Rule Nisi counsel appeared for the re spondents and upon appropriate instructions participated in the hearing of the matter
Annexure P 1 indicates the institutions located in different parts of the country where the posts of A  Group scientists who are members of the Council work
Their total number is 243 and this is not disputed
The petitioner has placed on record the rules framed in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in the Ministry of Science and Technology covering Group A  scientists
Rule 13 thereof provides avenues for promotion
This also is not disputed
Annexure P 3 is a tabuler state ment prepared by the petitioner showing the disparities in the service conditions between the BioMedical scientists and other similar scientists and the discrimination that Group A  specialistsscientists under the establishment of Direc tor General of Health Services suffer
The pay scale for different categories of Group A  scientists in the non medical posts and of doctors in the medical posts have been separately shown
It has been pointed out therein that while there is a difference in the pay scale in the establishment of Director General of Health Services there is no dispari ty in respect of similar posts in the Indian Council of Medical Research ICMR or in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Delhi or the Post Graduate Institute at Chandigarh
It has been further pointed out in the said chart that various kinds of allowances are admissible to the doctors in the medical wing such as book allowance higher degree allowance risk allowance and conveyance allowance in the establishment of Director General of Health Services while the non medical category manned by the A  Group scientists is denied all these allowances
It has also been alleged that while the medical category doctors get non practising allowance the benefit of 180 such allowance is not extended to the non medical category
Such discrimination according to the petitioner is not noticed in the ICMR or in the two Institute at Delhi and Chandigarh respectively
The 4th Pay Commission in Chapter 29 paragraph 298 recommended The question of granting incentive to offi cers and staff who acquire higher qualifica tion has also engaged our attention
Railways have suggested a scheme for giving such incen tives in the context of the need for updating the skills of the employees for the more efficient discharge of their duties in these days when modernisation and adoption of ad vanced technology is being undertaken in different fields of railway working
Sugges tions have also been made for grant of post graduate allowance to veterinary surgeons and special allowances to EDP personnel
Some such schemes are in existence in the defence serv ices
We suggest that some incentive should be given to employees who acquire qualifications which are useful for their work and contribute to their efficiency On 15th of December 1986 the Office Memorandum in the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension indi cated that this recommendation of the Pay Commission has been accepted by the Government
Undoubtedly in regard to the three other allowances namely book allowance risk allowance and conveyance allow ance there is no scope for discrimination between Group A  scientists in non medical and medical wings
In fact at the hearing of the writ petition respondent s counsel found it difficult to support the prevailing position
We are of the opinion that these four kinds of allowances which are admissible to the medical doctors are also admissible to the Group A  scientists under the non medical category employed in the establishment of Director General of Health Services
The claim for nonpractising allowance stands on a somewhat different footing and we do not think on the present state of the record of this proceeding we can come to a definite conclusion that the Group A  scientists in the non medical category would be also entitled to such allowance
We however leave the question open and Government at their level in the appropriate Ministry would examine tenability of this claim as and when raised
It has been canvassed by petitioner s counsel at the hearing that there is no justi fication for the disparity in the scale of pay between the two categories of officers
Government counsel has taken 181 the stand that the qualifications of officers in the two wings are different and the difference in the pay scales has always existed
It is difficult for us on the material available to take any final view of the matter but the respondent should examine tenability of the claim to equal scales of pay
This Court has on more than one occasion pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective
Promotion is thus a normal inci dence of service
There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other Ministries would have the benefit of promotion the non medical A  Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage
In a welfare State it is necessary that there should be an efficient public serv ice and therefore it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers
It is therefore necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the A  category scien tists in the non medical wing of the Directorate
This Writ Petition is allowed and the following direc tions are issued 1
Within four months from today the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Union of India shall frame a set of appropri ate rules inter alia providing suitable promotional avenue for the A  Group scien tists in the non medical wing of the estab lishment of Director General of Health Serv ices 2
These A  Group scientists shall be entitled to book allowance higher degree allowance risk allowance and conveyance allowance at the same rate as is admissible to doctors in the medical wing in the Directorate wef 141989 3
Government shall examine the tenability of the claim of equal pay scales for this category of officers within four months from today
There shall be no directions for costs
TNA Petition allowed


Summary:
In a suit for injunction and possession of the suit property on the basis of a registered sale deed executed by the widow of the owner of the property filed by the appel lants the question of admissibility of an unregistered document said to be Deed of Adoption by which the widow conferred on the adopted son rights in her property and relinquished her right to alienate any part of the property came up for consideration
The trial court accepted the document only in proof of adoption and decreed the suit
The first appellate court set aside the decree
On appeal
the High Court maintained lower appellate court s judgment and held that after execut ing the deed of adoption the widow had no right left in the property and therefore a transfer executed by her would not confer any title on the appellants
Aggrieved the appellants filed an appeal by special leave in this Court contending that as the deed would be hit by section 171b read with section 49 of the Indian  regarding relinquishment or conferment of right on the adopted son the High Court was not right in relying on this clause to come to the conclusion that the widow had no right to transfer the property in favour of the appellants
Allowing the appeal the Court HELD 1
Proviso c Section 12 of the  departs from the Hindu General Law and 145 makes it clear that the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which has vested in him or her before the adoption
Section 13 enacts that when the parties intend to limit the operation of proviso c to Section 12 it is open to them by an agreement to the contrary
148C In the instant case the widow was the limited owner of the property after the death of her husband
But after  came into force she has become an absolute owner
Therefore the property of her husband vested in her
Merely by adopting a child she could not be deprived of any of her rights in the property
The adoption would come into play and the adopted child could get the rights for which he is entitled after her death
147G H 2
Section 171b of the clear ly provides that a document where any right in movable property is either assigned or extinguished will require registration
148D In the instant case that part of the deed which refers to creation of an immediate right in the adopted son and divesting of the right of the adoptive mother in the proper ty will squarely fail within the ambit of Section 171b and therefore under Section 49 of the  this could not be admitted if it is not a registered docu ment
148E