NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said some organisations offer incentive for acquiring higher qualification during the service for a group of employees, such a benefit, however, cannot be extended to another set of staff governed by different set of rules.
"In any institution incentives may be given to a particular category of employees to get higher qualifications during service, considering their job requirements. 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," a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal said.
The court set aside the Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal's orders directing the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) to provide the benefit of the 1999 scheme for two advance increments to the technical staff. The scheme was available only to scientists for doing PhD degree during the service.
In its arguments, the ICAR said the recruitment of the scientists was on all India basis through a written competitive examination followed by interview whereas in technical service there were three categories Grade I, II, III, recruited at the institute level. The scientists were entitled for UGC pay scales. But the technical staff, the pay scale as recommended by for the central government employees was adopted.
The appellant also said it has categorised its staff as scientific,technical, administrative, auxiliary and supporting staff. Each of the categories were governed by separate set of rules and had independent cadres.
Per contra, the respondents technical staff members contended that even if the scientists were directly engaged in research, they are working on the technical side. The qualification of PhD, acquired by them made their assistance in research better. They said they were also provided study leave by the organisation.
Upon hearing the parties, the court, however, said, "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 court said the idea of grant of study leave for pursuing PhD to the technical personnel was only to enable them to improve their qualifications.
"Merely after having PhD qualification, the technical personnel will not become eligible for grant of two advance increments when the same has not been recommended for them," it said.
The bench also noted technical staff were governed by different set of rules, have their own channel of promotion, and different qualifications prescribed for recruitment. The duties assigned to them are also different as compared to the scientists, who are engaged in core work of agricultural research and education, whereas the technical staff only provided support to the scientists.
The court held the tribunal and High Court erred by equating technical personnel and scientists and granting respondents advance increments to which they are not entitled to.
