Dismissed

P.K.Harikumar v. Union of India

Kerala HC14 Jan 2020OP (CAT)/3677/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Kerala High Court held that Technical Officers cannot claim parity of pay or retirement age with Scientists. The court found research and technical support as distinct duties with different recruitment and career advancement criteria, rejecting the petitioners' application for re-evaluation of the Tribunal's order.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition (O.P.(CAT)) was rejected; parties to bear their respective costs.

P.K.Harikumar Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 24TH POUSHA, 1941

¶7

O.P (CAT).No.3677 OF 2012(Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDERS IN O.A.520/2010 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1 P.K.HARIKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, TECHNICAL OFFICER(T-7-8) CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KOCHI-682018

¶11

2 J.SRINIVASAN, S/O.LATE S.JAGANNATHAN, TECHNICAL OFFICER(T-7-8) CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KOCHI-682018

¶12

3 S.HAJA NAJEEMUDEEN, S/O.LATE SHEIK JAMAL, TECHNICAL OFFICER(T-6), CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KOCHI-682018

¶13

4 SMT.K.RAMANI, W/O.DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, TECHNICAL OFFICER(T-6), CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KOCHI-682018

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.P.M.BINOY KRISHNA

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

1 UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001

¶17

2 THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KOCHI-682018.

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶20

3 INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001

¶21

R1 BY ADV. SRI P.VIJAYAKUMAR ASG OF INDIA. R2-R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.T.C.KRISHNA.

¶22

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

- 3 -

¶24

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶25

K.Vinod Chandran & V.G.Arun, JJ.

¶26

---------------------------------------O.P(CAT) No.3677 of 2012-Z ---------------------------------------Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2020 JUDGMENT

¶27

K. Vinod Chandran,J:

¶28

The petitioners herein, Technical Officers under the Technical Service (TSR) of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), were the applicants before the Tribunal. They claimed parity of pay as also retirement age at par with the Scientists in the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). There was a divergence of opinion in the Bench of the Tribunal which heard the matter and hence was referred for the opinion of the third Member. The Judicial Member, to whom the matter was referred, agreed with the reasoning of the Administrative Member of the earlier Bench, which resulted in the rejection of the Original Application; which is challenged by the petitioners.

¶29

2. Sri.P.K.Madhusoodhanan, learned Counsel for the

¶30

petitioners, contended that the petitioners, who are Technical Officers, are doing the very same research work engaged in by the Scientists and they belong to the same pool of service which stood separated only in the year 1975. It is argued on the basis of Annexures A1 to A6 that the work carried on by the Technical Officers and the

¶31

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶32

- 4 -

¶33

Scientists are identical. Annexure A11 is relied on to further buttress the contention of parity. Reliance is placed on Annexure A12 judgment of the High Court of Delhi, which purportedly accepted the claim of identical work being carried on by the Scientists and Technical Officers. The decision of the Tribunal, produced along with the argument notes, as affirmed by the High Court is also relied on.

¶34

3. Sri.T.C.Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department points out that the Technical Services and Research Services are quite distinct and different; the former being employed to assist the latter. There can be no parity of duties claimed by the Technical Officers. Annexure A12 decision is said to be pending challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The decisions relied on in the argument notes are quite distinct and different, which has been highlighted in the counter to the argument notes.

¶35

4. Admittedly the posts in the ICAR have been classified into five categories, viz., Scientific, Technical, Administrative, Auxiliary and Supporting, as is seen extracted from the communication of ICAR itself dated

¶36

01.08.1975, reproduced at page 55 of the Manual of Administrative Instructions First Edition-1979, extracted

¶37

- 5 -

¶38

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶39

in the order of the Judicial Member at Exhibit P-6. The recruitment and service conditions are governed by the ARS insofar as Scientific posts are concerned and the Technical

¶40

personnel governed by the rules applicable to Technical Services. Admittedly the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board under the ARS used to carry out recruitment of both Technical and Scientific personnel and later it was confined to the Scientific personnel alone. It was argued that as of now again the very same Board is making recruitment of both services, which, however, is no indication that the work carried out by both the personnel are one and the same.

¶41

5. At the outset we have to specifically refer to the criteria based on which the categorization of services is carried out in ICAR, as is seen noticed by the Administrative Member in Exhibit P6:

¶42

“(a) Scientific: Scientific personnel shall be those who are engaged in agricultural research and education including extension education whether in physical, statistical, biological, engineering, technological or social sciences. This category shall also include persons engaged in planning, programming and management of scientific research.

¶43

(b) Technical: Technical personnel shall be those who perform technical service in support of research

¶44

- 6 -

¶45

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶46

and education whether in the Laboratory, Workshop or field, or in areas like Library, Documentation, Publication and Agricultural Communication.

¶47

At first blush though it would appear that both are engaged in research work, the actual duties would stand in distinct compartments; Scientific personnel being engaged in agricultural research and education including extension education, while the Technical personnel provides technical services in support of research and education. Hence, while research is being carried out by the Scientific personnel, the duties of the Technical personnel are to assist the Scientific personnel.

¶48

6. A mere perusal of the documents relied on by the petitioners also would support this interpretation placed by us. Annexure A4 is titled as “Research Project – 1978” and at serial No.6 lists out the name of personnel who constitute the team to carry out the research. It includes both Technical Officers and Scientists, who, for reason of being constituted under the Research Project as a group, for that sole reason, cannot be deemed to be carrying on identical duties. As we noticed, it is the Scientific personnel who carry out the research projects and the Technical staff are specifically

¶49

- 7 -

¶50

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶51

to assist them in the research projects.

¶52

7. Annexure A5 is the allocation of work, a scrutiny of which would establish that the Scientific personnel are placed on a pedestal above the Technical staff. The Technical staff had been assigned the duty of preparation of work programmes, scrutiny and analysis of data collected in the various locations, while the overall scrutiny of data and checking of analysis pertaining to the maritime States of the east coast and west coast have been assigned to two Scientific personnel in S-1 Branch. One another Scientific personnel in S-1 Branch, presumably the senior-most of the team, is assigned with the duty of overall supervision of the work and preparation of monthly reports. One Scientist has also been assigned the duties as the Technical staff, with respect to a particular location in Tamil Nadu, who would be the junior-most among the Scientific personnel. Annexures A6 and A7 are commendations given to Technical personnel who are also part of the research team and the commendation alone would not place them in the same level as Scientific personnel. They are necessarily part of the research team, but not entrusted with identical duties.

¶53

8. Annexure A11, as is specifically pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, is the Rules and Guidelines

¶54

- 8 -

¶55

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶56

to obtain Ph.D. for Technical Staff. It is an admitted position that the direct recruitment of Technical staff are from graduates, while those into the ARS as Scientific Officers are from persons having post-graduation. In fact, at the time of bifurcation of Technical Services and Agricultural Research Services, those who were in the common pool were bifurcated by assigning scientific posts in the ARS, to post-graduates and technical posts to graduates. However, it is an admitted fact that both the Technical and Scientific personnel are permitted to avail leave for the purpose of obtaining higher qualifications. The reference to Annexure A11 is to the specific statement in paragraph 6(I) that the research work carried out by the Technical employee would be effectively monitored. This does not again evidence the parity of engagement, but only indicates that the Technical staff too are engaged in research work, but not at the same level as the Scientific Officers.

¶57

9. Annexure A12 judgment was again insofar as the discrimination of grant of increments while obtaining higher qualification. Recognizing the importance of higher qualification for Scientists and Technical personnel, the ARS Study Leave Regulations, 1991 provided for both the personnel to avail of such leave for the purpose of

¶58

- 9 -

¶59

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶60

pursuing doctoral studies in their subjects. However, while the Scientific personnel were granted two increments, the Technical personnel were not provided with any such incentive. The Delhi High Court found that the different yardsticks, on acquisition of doctoral degrees would be arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory. There, the discrimination was not on parity of pay to personnel engaged in the same work. The discrimination noticed was on account of different yardsticks applied on acquisition of a doctoral degree by the Technical and Scientific personnel, both of whom are actively engaged in research work. While recognizing that quality of research carried out by the Organization would be enhanced on acquisition of higher qualification by Technical and Scientific personnel, necessarily on acquisition of the higher qualification they have to be treated similarly for the purpose of grant of incentive. This does not, we reiterate at the risk of repetition, enable any claim for parity of pay, which would depend upon the work assigned to each parties which we have already found are quite distinct and different.

¶61

10. It was urged by the petitioners that for a considerable period of time the Technical and Scientific personnel were granted same pay scales. As we noticed above, there was a bifurcation of the Technical and

¶62

- 10 -

¶63

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶64

Scientific personnel and later to the implementation of the 6^th Central Pay Commission Report, the Scientific personnel were conferred with a higher scale of pay. It is not the case of the Technical personnel that they were not granted a revision of pay by the 6^th Pay Commission, but their claim is that they should be granted the same grade pay as the Scientific personnel; which cannot be countenanced.

¶65

11. It is also very pertinent that insofar as the service personnel under the ARS, the ICAR adopted the UGC scales of pay, which enable a higher pay scale as also a different retirement age, that is at 62 years, as compared with other Central Government staff, whose age of superannuation is at 60. The contention of the petitioners also is that there are not many teaching posts in the ICAR. However, it cannot be disputed that the teaching posts and research posts are interchangeable and the Scientists are not only engaged in agricultural research, but also education including extension education, as is evident from the extracted criteria in the earlier paragraph.

¶66

12. We perfectly agree with the Administrative Member who dissented from the Judicial Member and found that both TSR and ARS are set up with different objectives and are governed by a distinct personnel policy, method of recruitment and career advancement. While post-graduates

¶67

- 11 -

¶68

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶69

are appointed initially to the ARS, the essential qualification for recruitment into the Technical Services is graduation. Post-graduation is not established to be an essential qualification for recruitment of Technical personnel and no Recruitment Rule to that effect has been relied on. The nature and duties of the work assigned to the Technical and Scientific personnel are quite distinct and different. The fact that the personnel in both the services had at one time parity of pay does not prohibit the State from later providing a higher pay for Scientists based on the concerted research work enjoined upon them.

¶70

13. We also do not see any reliance possible to

¶71

the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.882 of 2010. The counter affidavit filed by the official respondent indicates that what was sought for in the O.A. was to declare that the applicant therein is eligible to be included in the scale of pay of Rs.550-900 in the T-4 Grade as granted to similarly placed Technical personnel in the technical service of the ICAR and not a parity of employment with the Scientists. That contention may not be exactly correct since the claim arose on the similarly placed Technical Officer, who was granted the higher pay scale had sought equation with the Scientific Officers under the ARS. Be that as it may the said controversy which

¶72

- 12 -

¶73

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶74

also resulted in an adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal arose on the bifurcation of technical and agricultural research services carried out on 01.10.1975. Both were borne in the same service prior to bifurcation and were adjusted in different services based on their qualifications. The decision of the Tribunal was specifically with respect to a Technical Officer who was borne in the service prior to the bifurcation; who alone was denied the benefit of higher pay scale. Those who were appointed to the services after the bifurcation would not be entitled to that benefit; which obviously is the case with the petitioners herein.

¶75

We do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal which rejected the O.A. The O.P(CAT) is rejected, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶76

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶77

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶78

Vku/-

¶79

- 13 -

¶80

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶81

APPENDIX

¶82

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶83

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.520/2010 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES MARKED THEREIN.
ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/04/2009 FILED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/06/2009 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/09/2009.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 22/06/2011 BY THE RESPONDENTS.
ANNEXURE R1	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.4(1)2009 ESTT.IV DATED 14/05/2009M CONTAINING DECISION OF THIRD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R2	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.4(2)2009-ESTT.IV DATED 08/12/2009 CONTAINING DECISION OF 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R3	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.4(1)2009-ESTT.IV DATED 08/12/2009 CONTAINING DECISION OF 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER IN OA 520/2010 DATED 13/07/2011 BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF A RESEARCH PROJECT 1978.
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT WORK ALLOTMENT ORDER DATED 25/03/1981 ISSUED FOR THE SCIENTISTS AND THE TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY OF THE PREFACE WRITTEN BY DIRECTOR GENERAL, ICAR DATED 25/MAY/2006.
ANNEXURE A7	TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE DATED 12/01/2010.
ANNEXURE A8	TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER
	NO.F.NO.1(9)2006-PER IV DATED 185/05/2011.

¶84

- 14 -

¶85

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶86

ANNEXURE A9	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/11/2010 BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ICAR.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO REJOINDER IN OA 520/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 08/08/2011.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REJOINDER IN OA 520/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 19/09/2011.
ANNEXURE A10	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF THE PROJECT OF IARI FOR 2004-2009.
ANNEXURE A11	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2004 BY THE INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
ANNEXURE A12	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/07/2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI IN WPC 3364-65/04.
ANNEXURE A13	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A14	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS DATED 28/08/2011, 18/04/2011 AND 01/07/2010 OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 09/11/2011 IN OA NO.520/2010 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19/06/2012 IN OA NO.520/2010 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 02/07/2012 IN OA NO.520/2010 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.7(10)/78-PER.III DATED 27/01/1979 OF THE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO.2/2012 IN F.NO.19(16)/2011-ESTT.IV(PT.) DATED 04/05/2012 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶87

- 15 -

¶88

OP(CAT).3677 of 2012

¶89

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶90

EXHIBIT R2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.4(1)/2009-ESTT.IV DATED 14/05/2009 CONTAINING THE DECISION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶91

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.4(2)/2009-ESTT.(IV) DATED 08/12/2009 CONTAINING DECISION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶92

EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.4(1)2009-ESTT.(IV)PT. DATED 08/12/2010 CONTAINING THE DECISION OF TH 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶93

[TRUE COPY]

P.K.Harikumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Harikumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh C., Vs the Accountant General (E and Rsa)

Dr.Gracykutty Mathew, Vs State of Kerala

Dineshan E. Vs State of Kerala

P.Udayakumar, Vs State of Kerala

Jayanthi Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Electricity Baord Ltd. Vs P.Ambili