1. Applicants in this OA are Technical Officers (T-7-8 or T-6). According to them they are entitled for the very same Grade Pay as that of Scientists and also for uniformity in the matter of retirement age. The Bench which heard the matter held that the enhanced age of 62 is applicable to the Scientists and it cannot be extended to the Technical Staff like the applicants. However, the question as to whether the applicants are entitled for the same Grade Pay, the opinion was divided between the Members. Hence, this Original Application was referred to the 3rd Member in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and thus come up for consideration before me.
2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant the Technical Staff (T-7-8 or T-6) cannot be discriminated against the Scientists who were given the same scale of pay by the Government of India decision and the difference lies only in the matter of Grade Pay, while the Technical Staff was given Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- Scientists were given Rs. 6,600/- as Grade Pay.
3. The point in controversy is as to whether Technical Staff are entitled to the same Grade Pay and that is the question to be answered.
4. To compare the service conditions of the applicants it is submitted that the service conditions of the Scientists are governed by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and those of Technical Staff is governed by the Technical Service Rules (TSR) of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The Technical Staff in T-6 level should possess a Postgraduate Degree as in the case of Scientist. Both of them are given the same leave facilities for doing research for Ph.D. That the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has confirmed the Tribunal's order in the matter of grant of two increments to the Technical Staff as was given to the Scientists. Both Scientists and Technical Staff are engaged in Research work. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as the Annexures A5 and A6. Both Technical Staff in T6 and Scientists were treated alike until the VIth Pay Commission Recommendations and subsequently by Annexure R2, pay scale was restored by the Government based on the representation made by the Technical Staff.
5. The respondents on the other hand would contend that in Annexure A2 representation the prayer made was to the extent or grant of UGC package as in the case of ICAR Scientific staff to persons directly associated with research package who may be treated at par with scientific category. That other Technical staff like Motor/Tractor Drivers, Milk Measurer, Butcher etc. could not directly participate in the research projects, they may be governed by the present Technical Service Rules. In other words applicants wants bifurcation in the technical staff and to cull out the technical staff who are directly associated with research project to be treated alike with that of Scientific category in the matter of pay scale and work. Respondents would contend that it is impermissible. According to them UGC scale was extended to the Scientists only after the recommendation made by the Rao Committee was accepted and till then they were also not given the UGC scale. There is no comparison of Technical Staff in T-6 and T-7-8 with that of Scientists and they are not comparable posts.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and gone through the pleadings.
7. The applicants' contention that they are entitled for getting pay as in the case of Scientists can be accepted, if only, they are able to convincingly prove that they are similarly situated with that of the Scientists. Admittedly in the ICAR Society, the posts in the Council is categorized as per Rule 21 as Scientific, Technical, Administrative (including Accounts), Auxiliary and Supporting on the basis of the criteria mentioned thereunder. In respect to Scientific posts are concerned, 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, programing and management of scientific research. In the case of Technical personnel Rule 21(b) provides that Technical personnel shall be those who perform technical service in support of research and education whether in the Laboratory, Workshop or field, or in areas like Library, Documentation, Publication and Agricultural Communication. Besides these two types of personnel Scientific and Technical, there are administrative, auxiliary and supporting personnel. The employees of all of whom fall in one of these categories generally governed as per the rules and bye laws of the ICAR Society. There are different pay scales of Technical Services as per Appendix-I of ICAR Handbook of Technical Services. Technical posts are also classified into various groups. Further within each category the posts have been functionally classified into seven groups. A person appointed as T-1 can get promotions to T-I-3 and can enter in category-II and such other as provided in career advancement under TSR. While so in ARS initially there were four grades with the scale of pay as indicated and Agricultural Research Scientists are recruited through the competitive examination and interview through the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB) in accordance with the provisions of Schedule-II and also by promotion from Grade 'S'. Therefore, the direct recruitment through the ASRB start even in the level of S-I through open competitive examination. The essential qualifications were prescribed as Master's Degree in the relevant subject or a Bachelor's Degree in any branch of Engineering or Technology. In Technical Service the 1st post is T1 and in ARS the 1st post is Scientist. The scale of pay are totally different. The recruitment is not proved to be similar nor the duties and the nature of work. The mere fact that there were no difference in the mater of scale of pay until the VIth Pay Commission recommendations is made by itself is not adequate to hold that they are similarly situated to that of Scientists. The fact remains that salary and other remuneration of the employees of ICAR was paid in tune with the Central Government pay for a long time. But Agricultural Research Scientists were given UGC pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 and there was also enhancement in the superannuation age from 60 to 62. The research management positions were also re-classified and the recruitment rules and assessment were also changed. The assessment system as available in the TSR was abolished. Dr. M.V. Rao committee after considering the fact that the ICAR has the role of UGC in agricultural education recommended that the ICAR being an apex organization in the Country for agricultural education, research and extension should have the pay scales at least at par with the State Agricultural Universities. This recommendations were accepted by the Central Government and a policy decision was taken in 1988 extending the UGC package to ICAR Scientists engaged in teaching, research and extension. In the teaching field they get academic Grade Pay, those who are engaged in research get research Grade Pay and Scientists of outstanding merit will have a scale of pay which is higher than that of the grade in which they draw their pay. But these features are not sufficiently available to the employees in Technical side since their pay scale is prescribed by the Central Government as Central Government employees. Thus TSR and ARS are not set up with the same objectives but are governed by distinct personnel policy method of recruitment and career advancement. ICAR is a society and employees of ICAR are not Central Government employees. They are the employees of ICAR and are governed by its rules and regulations. The Pay Commission Recommendation as accepted by Government of India are adopted by the ICAR. UGC package is adopted and recommended only for Scientists in the ARS. It is well settled that equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right but is only a constitutional goal as held in the State of West Bengal and Anr. Vs. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and Ors. - 2010 (5) SCC 275. Thus, though ICAR adopted UGC pay package on the direction of Government of India to the Scientists, such UGC package was not extended to the Technical personnel in TSR and Technical personnel continued to receive the remuneration at par with the Central Government employees and all the benefits, revision of pay scales on the recommendations of the pay commission. The TSR and ARS would further indicate that the categories of posts are not similar, qualifications are totally different, method of recruitment is different and nature of work is also totally different. It may be true that for studying Ph.D. two advance increments to Scientists are extended to the Technical Staff that by itself is no reason to hold that they are otherwise equal in all other aspects. There are four categories of staff governed by different service conditions under the respondent Organization. In case of Technical Staff their career advancement is governed by five yearly assessment and no such policy has been adopted for the ministerial staff as well as supporting staff category. Therefore, there is force in the contention that the demand for parity for Technical employees governed by the VIth Pay Commission recommendation with Scientific Staff who are covered by the UGC pay package is not tenable as virtually it will be extending the UGC scale to the Technical employees if the contention of the applicants are accepted. The Scientists are directly involved in agricultural research work and directly or indirectly helped by the Technical staff. Therefore, mandate of scientific service and technical service are different. There is no functional parity established.
8. In the light of the above discussion it has to be held that Technical Staff like the applicants cannot be compared with the Scientists for the purpose of extending the same Grade Pay as is prayed for. The question is answered accordingly. Let the matter be placed before the Division Bench for final pronouncement of the judgment in accordance with Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.