Employees Governed By Different Rules & Having Different Duties Can't Claim Parity Merely Based On Same Qualification: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (recently on August 22) observed that a different set of employees, who are governed by different set of rules and have different duties, are not entitled to benefits extended to another group of employees merely because they obtaining the same qualification. Briefly put, the facts of the present case revolved around a letter issued by the Indian Council of...
The Supreme Court (recently on August 22) observed that a different set of employees, who are governed by different set of rules and have different duties, are not entitled to benefits extended to another group of employees merely because they obtaining the same qualification.
Briefly put, the facts of the present case revolved around a letter issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research informing the employees about the revised pay scale which was followed after the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. This communication also provided that a 'scientist will be eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires a Ph.D. degree in his service career'.
On the basis of this letter, the present respondents, who are working on the technical side approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for grant of advance increments to them. For the respondents, the appellant had adopted the pay scales as recommended by the Government of India for the Central Government employees.
Following the orders of the Tribunal, the appellant considered their representation, however, it dismissed the same. When the respondents challenged this before the Tribunal, their plea was allowed. Against this backdrop, the appellant approached the High Court and now Supreme Court.
The Bench of Justices J.K Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal took note of the fact that the role of respondents was different as compared to the scientists, who are engaged in core work of agricultural research and education.
Merely because different set of employees, who may be working in aid but governed by different set of rules and having different duties to discharge also obtain that qualification, will not entitle them to the benefits which were extended to different set of employees by the competent authority. However, the respondents being technical personnel provide support in different areas.
“Merely because Study Leave Regulations, 1991 were extended to technical personnel, this would not entitle them to other benefits which are available to the scientists. The idea of grant of study leave for pursuing Ph.D. to the technical personnel was only to enable them to improve their qualifications.” The Court said and added that the technical personnel will not become eligible for grant of two advance increment merely after having PHD qualification. The Court noted that this benefit was not meant for them.
“Merely because different set of employees, who may be working in aid but governed by different set of rules and having different duties to discharge also obtain that qualification, will not entitle them to the benefits which were extended to different set of employees by the competent authority.”
In view of this, the court also observed that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution would not be applicable in the present case. Stating thus, the Court held that the Trial Court as well as the High Court has erred in equating technical personnel and scientists. Thus, the appeal was ultimately allowed.
Case Details: Indian Council Of Agricultural Research Through The Director General And Anr V. Rajinder Singh And Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 97-98 Of 2012
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 611