R L Sharma v. Indian Council Of Agricultural Research And ORS
Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
$-2 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7029/2017 R L SHARMA Petitioner Through:
Mr.S.S. Tiwari, Advocate.
versus INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ORS Respondents Through:
Ms.Archana Gaur & Ms.Ridhima Gaur, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 22.08.2017 The petitioner is assailing the order dated 11.01.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 1754/2013. The Tribunal has disposed of the said original application rejecting the claim by the petitioner mainly to seek a direction to formulate a scheme for grant of super time scale of Rs.22000-500-24500 for merit promotion to the Principal Scientists of Eminence in terms of circular dated 27.02.1999 and 19.07.2000. Consequential relief were also sought by the petitioner. The petitioner retired as a Scientist S-2 on 31.08.2003, whereafter vide order dated 11.06.2012, he was granted promotion as Principal Scientist in grade S-3 w.e.f. 31.12.1981.
Page I of 4
The respondent-ICAR issued a circular dated 27.02.1999 on the subject of the revision of pay scales of the Scientists of ICAR following the revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendation of the 5^^ Central Pay Commission. This communication inter alia stated that with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance and approval of the competent authority, the ICAR had approved the revision of pay scales of ICAR scientists as a follow-up action on recommendations of Central Pay Commission for Central Government. The communication inter alia stated "Accordingly the revision of pay scales of ICAR Scientists will be subject to the various provisions of the scheme of revision of pay scales as contained in this letter and the regulations to be framed by the ICAR in this regard."
This communication went on to describe the revised pay scales and other service commissions in respect of different categories of employees. From the above, it would be seen that the revision of pay scale of ICAR Scientists was made subject to, firstly, the various provisions of the scheme of revision of pay scales as contained in the said letter and, secondly, the regulations to be framed by the ICAR in that regard. Undisputedly, for 18 years, the regulations have not been framed by the ICAR to operate the revised pay scales indicated in the letter dated 27.02.1999.
The petitioner preferred the above said original application, to seek a direction to ICAR to frame a scheme for grant of super time
scale as aforesaid in terms of the circular dated 27.02.1999 & 19.07.2000. We find that though the petitioner has referred to the communication dated 19.07.2000 in the prayer clause made before the Tribunal, the same does not appear to have been placed on record. It has also not been placed on record in the present proceedings. The petition was opposed by the respondents. The Tribunal takes note of the fact that sum and substance of the reply of the respondents was that till date, no final decision had been taken nor any guidelines had been formulated by the Ministry of Human Resource and Development or the UGC itself. The ICAR also mentioned that the scheme had been referred to the Ministry of Finance for concurrence.
However, due to financial implications, the scheme for grant of super time scale was not finalized either in the UGC or MHRD. In the face of the said response, the Tribunal held that it is for the competent authority in the MHRD or the other limbs of the Central Government to take appropriate action. Since no decision had been taken by the competent authority to grant the scales, a direction could not be issued to the Government to grant the revised pay scales to the petitioner in terms of the decision dated 27.02.1999. The Tribunal, however, observed that if at a later stage, any such decision is taken, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the respondents. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the communication dated 27.02.
1999 constituted a binding commitment on the part of the ICAR to grant the revised pay scales mentioned therein. We cannot agree with the submission. As noticed hereinabove.
the said communication provided that the revision of pay scales for ICAR Scientists would be subject to inter alia, the regulations to be framed by the ICAR in that regard. It appears from the impugned order, that when the ICAR took up the matter with the Ministry of Finance, it did not receive that concurrence. That being the position, the employer/ICAR cannot direct to grant the higher pay scales as suggested in the communication dated 27.02.1999. The claim of the petitioner for grant of super time scale cannot be granted also for the reason that apparently as per Para 6 of the OM dated 19.07.2000, the Respondent ICAR had specifically stated that the proposals relating to super time scale for the Scientist, will be taken up after the scheme in respect of UGC is finalised and implemented. The stand of the UGC before the Tribunal was that the said scheme had not been finalized or implemented in the UGC. Hence, we are of the view that there was no basis for the claim for super time scale by the petitioner.
We do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
VIPINSANGHI, J REKHA PALLI, J AUGUST 22, 2017 gm