Dr. A.K. Surya Son of Late Shri P.L. Surya Vs the Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research

[2026:RJ-JP:514-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1861/2025

Dr. A.K. Surya Son Of Late Shri P.L. Surya, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Type IV/5 Central Sheep And Wool Research Institute Campus, Avika Nagar Tonk, Rajasthan. Applicant Is Retired As Ex-Senior Technical Officer Grade T-Vi From Central Sheep And Wool Research Institute, Avika Nagar (Tehsil Malpura) Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan.(Now Resides At Flat No. G-02, Manar Mainsion, 15Th Main, 17Th Cross, Rose Garden Road, J.p. Nagar 5Th Phase, Bangluru- 560078, Karnataka)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Director General, Indian Council Of Agricultural Research, Pusa Road, New Delhi.

¶8

The Director, Central Sheep And Wool Research Institute, Avika Nagar (Tehsil Malpura) Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Asthana For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saugath Roy

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order

¶12

08/01/2026

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’ for short).

¶14

The petitioner filed an Original Application before the Tribunal with the following prayers:-

¶15

“i) by appropriate order or direction the respondents be directed to grant the benefit of pay scale T-7-8 and T-9 from the date it has been granted to the persons junior to him viz Shri J. P Mathur ans Shri Madan Lal Jangid.

(2 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:514-DB]

[CW-1861/2025]

ii) Respondent be also directed to make payment of arrears of salary and allowance on account of grant of pay Scale T-7-8 and T-9 along with interest @ 12% from the date it becomes due, iii) Respondent may please also be directed to recalculate the retirement benefits payable to the applicant at the revised scale of pay and issue revised PPO and pay arrears of Gratuity, Leave Encashment and GPF as well as commutation of Pension as admissible along with interest thereon @12% from the date it becomes due.

¶20

iv) Cost of the O. A may also be allowed to the Applicant along with Exemplary compensation for forcing repeated litigation, v) Any other order or relief may also be granted in favour of the humble applicant as Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that the petitioner was not granted benefit of pay scale T7-8 and T-9 from the dates on which the said benefits were granted to his juniors, namely Sh. J.P. Mathur and Sh. Madan Lal Jangid. Further, the case of the petitioner is that he was not considered for promotion on account of his designation having been wrongly changed by the respondents.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents, vide order dated 28.10.2005 (Annexure-7) granted the benefit of pay scale of T-7-8 to Sh. R.S. Dagore as well as Sh. J.P. Mathur, whereas the said benefit has been denied to the petitioner.

¶23

Reply to the writ petition has been filed and in Para No.11, it has been stated as under:-

¶24

“That the contents of para no. 11 is not admitted as stated as no misleading facts or misrepresentation made by the answering respondent and petitioner contention has been taken care of by learned Central Administrative Tribunal. The career advancement for technical employees is merit based selection based on consistently maintained ACR of the incumbent under rule 6 of TSR, the applicant could not be granted the promotion due to his ACR's not meeting the bench mark as stipulated in

(3 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:514-DB]

[CW-1861/2025]

the policy dated 26.12.2005 made applicable from 1.1.2006 and the policy was applicable for promotion to the post of T-3 to T-4, T-4 to T-5 and T-5 to T-6. The issue has been dealt with by Principal seat of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. CW Petition No. 19267/2024 titled ICAR versus Subhash Srivastava decided on 24.09.2025 where in the writ petition was allowed and the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dated 2.7.2024 was quashed and set aside. The copy of the Judgment will be submitted for perusal at the time of hearing of the case.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the benefit

¶30

under revised pay scale T-7-8 and T-9 was not accorded to the petitioner as his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) did not meet the benchmark stipulated under the policy dated 26.12.2005. He further submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Indian Council & Ors. v. Subhash Srivastava in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19627/2024 decided on

¶31

24.09.2025, where in Paras No.5 to 8 it has been held as under:

¶32

“5. This Court upon consideration of the whole case finds that the respondent, who was entitled to be considered for promotion from 01.01.2006 onward, could not get the promotion due to his ACRs not meeting the benchmark stipulated in the policy dated 26.12.2005, which was in force from 01.01.2006. consideration for promotion occurred after 01.01.2006, and the policy was uniformly applicable.

¶33

6. This Court is of the opinion that since the policy effective from 01.01.2006 applied uniformly to all employees seeking promotion from T-3 to T-4, T-4 to T-5, and T-5 to T-6, there was no requirement to communicate the policy separately or deviate from its application. The policy was the operative framework and applied uniformly to all employees eligible for promotion.

¶34

7. This Court finds that the reasons provided by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal are not applicable in the present case, as both the counsels have focused on the applicability of the policy effective from 01.01.2006. The respondent's counsel has argued that the policy's retrospective application renders it inapplicable, while the petitioner's counsel has emphasized that the policy was uniform and consistently applied to all employees seeking promotion from T-3 to T-4, T-4 to T-5, and T-5 to T-6. Moreover, this Court is conscious of the fact that while

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:514-DB]

[CW-1861/2025]

consideration for promotion is a right, promotion in violation of an existing policy is neither a right nor permissible.

¶39

8. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur is quashed and set aside.”

¶40

Learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶42

The first grievance of the petitioner regarding non-grant of benefit of pay scale T-7-8 and T-9 to him, as has been granted to Sh. R.S. Dagaur and Sh. J.P. Mathur, who were junior to him, is not acceptable, as the said persons were working on the post of Laboratory Technician, whereas the petitioner was working as Technical Assistant (Lab).

¶43

The further grievance raised by the petitioner regarding nongrant of pay scale under T-7-8 and T-9 also deserves to be rejected, as the petitioner could not fulfill the required criteria as the ACRs of the petitioner did not meet the benchmark stipulated under the policy dated 26.12.2005. Further, the respondents have specifically pleaded this fact in Para No.11 of their reply although the petitioner filed a rejoinder but not controverted the reply submitted by the respondent before this Court to this fact.

¶44

In that view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal.

¶45

No case is made out for interference.

¶46

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶47

(RAVI CHIRANIA),J

¶48

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶49

PAYAL DHAWAN /15

Dr. A.K. Surya Son of Late Shri P.L. Surya v. the Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. A.K. Surya Son of Late Shri P.L. Surya v. the Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Jagdish Son of Shri Sanwal Vs the Urban Improvement Trust

Jamna Prasad Sharma S/O Shri Brij Lal Sharma Vs Chairman

Tej Singh Dhabhai S/O Late Sundar Lal Dhabhai Vs Registrar General

Mahendra Kumar Gupta S/O Late Shri Ram Narayan Gupa Vs Shri Sudhir Kumar Gupta

Villagers of Village Nayanagar Vs State of Rajasthan

Union of India Vs Income Tax Gazzetted Officer Association