Holding

The benefit of two advance increments for acquiring a Ph.D. is confined to scientists and does not extend to technical personnel, so the Tribunal and High Court orders granting such increments to technical staff are set aside.

Summary

The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) created two separate cadres – Agricultural Research Service (ARS) for scientists and Technical Service (TS) for technical staff – each governed by distinct service rules. A 1999 scheme granted scientists two advance increments upon acquiring a Ph.D., but technical staff were not accorded this benefit. The technical staff applied to the Central Administrative Tribunal for the same increments, which was allowed, and the High Court upheld that decision. ICAR appealed, arguing that the benefit was exclusive to scientists and that extending it to technical staff violated the separate pay structures and did not invoke Article 14. The Supreme Court held that the Ph.D. incentive was part of the scientists' pay package only, and technical personnel were not entitled to it, setting aside the Tribunal and High Court orders. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the applications for increments by the technical staff were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether technical personnel in the Agricultural Research Service are entitled to the two advance increments on acquiring a Ph.D. as provided to scientists under the 1999 scheme.
Whether denial of the increments to technical staff violates the equality clause (Article 14) of the Constitution.
Whether the extension of the Study Leave Regulations, 1991 to technical personnel creates a right to the same financial incentives as scientists.

Legislation cited

Subjects

IncentivesTwo advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. degreeScientists in Agricultural Research ServiceEmployees on the technical side in the Agricultural Research Service

Judgment

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 507 : 2024 INSC 622

Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through the
Director General and Anr.
v.
Rajinder Singh and Ors.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 97-98 of 2012)
22 August 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Employees working on the technical side in the Agricultural
Research Service, if entitled to two advance increments given to
the Scientists in Agricultural Research Service on acquiring Ph.D.
degree in their service career.

Headnotes†
Service Law – Incentives – Grant of two advance increments on
acquiring Ph.D. degree to Scientists in Agricultural Research
Service – Employees working on the technical side in the
Agricultural Research Service seeking the same benefit –
Allowed by the tribunal and the High Court – Correctness:
Held: Benefit of two advance increments for acquiring Ph.D.
qualification was part of the pay package of the Scientists – Similar
benefit was not extended to the technical personnel – For technical
personnel, the appellants had adopted the revised scales as
recommended by the Government of India for Central Government
employees – Merely because Study Leave Regulations, 1991 were
extended to technical personnel, would not entitle them to other
benefits which are available to the scientists – Merely after having
Ph.D. qualification, the technical personnel would not become
eligible for grant of two advance increments when the same has
not been recommended for them – 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, would not entitle them to
the benefits which were extended to different set of employees by
the competent authority – Art. 14 would not have any application –
* Author
508 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Tribunal and High Court erred by equating technical personnel and
scientists and granting respondents advance increments to which
they are not entitled to – Additional qualification merely makes them
eligible for the higher post in the different cadre and not to grant
them benefits, attached to the higher post in a different cadre –
Impugned orders passed by the High Court and the tribunal set
aside. [Paras 9, 10, 10.1, 10.2, 11]

List of Acts
Societies Registration Act, 1860; Agricultural Research Service
Study Leave Regulations, 1991; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Incentives; Two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. degree;
Scientists in Agricultural Research Service; Employees on the
technical side in the Agricultural Research Service.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.97-98 of 2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2010 of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in WP Nos. 3364 and 3365 of 2004
Appearances for Parties
Praveen Swarup, Ameet Siingh, Ms. Payal Swarup, Ms. Aditi Singh,
Devesh Maurya, Syed Zafar Husain, Baij Nath Yadav, Ravi Kumar,
K. P. Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
Dr. K. B. Sounder Rajan, Sr. Adv., Sudarshan Rajan, Mahesh Kumar,
Ms. Srishti Sharma, Ramesh Rawat, Rohit Bhardwaj, Hitain Bajaj,
Sachin S, Ashutosh Gupta, Nand Ram, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 21.07.2010 passed
by the High Court1 in Writ Petition2 filed against the order dated

1 High Court of Delhi
2 W.P.(C) Nos. 3364-65/2004
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 509

Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through the Director
General and Anr. v. Rajinder Singh and Ors.

18.07.20033 passed by the Tribunal4. The Tribunal had allowed the
application filed by the respondents, extending them the benefit of
the scheme5 dated 27.02.1999 in terms of which a scientist was
eligible for two advance increments as and when he acquires a
Ph.D. degree in his service career.
2. Briefly the facts as are available on record are that the appellant
No.1-Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) before this
Court is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860. It is engaged in agricultural research. On 01.10.1975, the
appellant No.1 constituted two services namely Agricultural Research
Service (in short “ARS”) and Technical Service (in short “TS”). These
are governed by two sets of Service Rules. The nature of duties
performed by the incumbents employed under the two services are
totally different.
2.1 The pay scales of the employees of the Central Government
were revised on the recommendations of the Fifth Central
Pay Commission. The appellant/ICAR issued a scheme vide
letter dated 27.02.1999 to all field offices informing them
about the revision of pay scales of the scientists working with
the appellants. The communication provided for existing pay
scales and the corresponding new pay scales for the Scientists,
Scientists (senior scale), Scientists (selection grade/Senior
Scientists), Principal Scientist and other Senior Officers.
2.2 Clause (ii) of the aforesaid communication provided for
incentives for Ph.D./M.Phil. Sub-clause (d) which is relevant
for the case at hand provided that a ‘scientist will be eligible
for two advance increments as and when he acquires a Ph.D.
degree in his service career’. The aforesaid clause is the root
cause for the litigation in question.
2.3 The respondents who are working on technical side in Indian
Agricultural Research Institute (for short “IARI”), a unit under the
appellant No.1 approached the Tribunal by filing an application6

3 Passed in OA No. 2939/2002
4 Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
5 Order No. 1 (15)98-Per IV of Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi
6 Original Application No. 1536/2002
510 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

for a direction to the appellants for grant of advance increments
to them in terms of letter dated 27.02.1999 on acquiring the
Ph.D. degree as was applicable in the case of scientists. The
Tribunal vide order dated 06.06.2002 directed the appellants to
consider the representation made by the respondents claiming
the aforesaid relief.
2.4 In terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal, the appellant/
ICAR considered the representation and rejected the same vide
memorandum dated 02.08.2002. It was mentioned therein that
the appellant had categorized 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. The recruitment of the scientists was at
the entry level of ₹8,000-13,500 and made on All India basis
through a written competitive examination followed by interview
whereas in technical service there were 3 categories i.e. grades
I, II and III. The recruitment in these categories was made at
the institute level. The appellants had adopted UGC pay scales
for scientists in ARS with effect from 01.01.1986 and award
of advance increments to the scientists in ARS for having
Ph.D. qualification during service was part and parcel of the
pay package applicable to the scientists. As respondents are
part of the technical service, the pay scales as recommended
by the Government of India for the Central Government
employees were adopted. There was no additional incentive
to the respondents for Ph.D. qualification, if obtained during
service career.
2.5 Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondents filed
OA No. 2939/2002 before the Tribunal. The same was allowed
vide order dated 18.07.2003. Aggrieved against the same
the appellants preferred Writ Petitions before the High Court,
which were dismissed. The said order is under challenge in
the present appeals.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal,
while allowing the application filed by the respondents had travelled
beyond the jurisdiction vested in it. It was wrongly opined that
both categories of employees, namely the scientists and technical
personnel, are working with the appellant for the same object, hence,
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 511

Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through the Director
General and Anr. v. Rajinder Singh and Ors.

there should not be any distinction. If the scientist were granted
two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. qualification during
service, the respondents should not have been discriminated. The
Tribunal could not have ventured into this aspect of the matter as
the competent authority, in its wisdom, had granted the benefit of two
advance increments to the category of employees, who deserved
it. Merely because other sets of employees also obtained the same
qualification, they will not be eligible to get those benefits.
3.1 He further submitted that extension of ARS Study Leave
Regulations, 1991 to the technical personnel had nothing to do
with grant of advance increments. It was merely to encourage
them to improve their qualifications with no promise of any
financial benefit. The writ petition was dismissed by a cryptic
order. The High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal on wrong
premise by invoking Article 14, trying to equate the scientist
and technical staff, merely because they are working with the
appellants. They are governed by different sets of rules and
belong to different cadres.
3.2 The prayer in the present appeal is to set aside the order of
the Tribunal as well as the High Court and rejection of the
application filed by the respondents before the Tribunal.
4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents relied upon Entry 66 in List I to the 7th Schedule attached
to the Constitution of India which deals with determination of standards
in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and
technical institutions. The submission was that the words ‘research’
and ‘technical’ have been mentioned in the same Entry. Even if the
scientists were directly engaged in research, the respondents are
working on the technical side. As the added qualification of Ph.D.,
made their assistance in research better, the relief claimed by them
was rightly allowed by the impugned order.
4.1 It was further submitted that Study Leave Regulations, 1991
which were applicable to the scientists were made applicable
to the technical personnel, in terms of which they were entitled
to get study leave for a period of 3 years for undertaking Ph.D.
program. This establishes that they were being equated with
the scientists and the study leave granted for undertaking
512 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

program was to enable them to assist the scientists in a better
way. Hence, the benefit of two advance increments, which
are admissible to the scientists, was rightly awarded to the
respondents.
4.2 He further referred to a Circular7 dated 01.05.1995 in terms
of which the names of the technical staff who have obtained
Ph.D. qualification will also be permitted to be included in the
research projects/papers/reports, in addition to other scientists.
It was further argued that when the technical personnel acquires
a Ph.D. qualification, they become eligible for lateral entry to
the scientists cadre. Hence, the qualification has relation with
the scientist cadre.
4.3 The submission is that there is no error in the orders passed
by the High Court as well as the Tribunal. Grant of advance
increments merely encouraged the respondents and the other
technical personnel to improve their qualifications and contribute
more efficiently to the research.
5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
referred record.
6. The root cause of the litigation is the circular dated 27.02.1999
vide which the pay scales of the scientists working with the
appellants were revised after acceptance of the recommendations
by the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The relevant clause is
extracted below:
“(ii) Incentives for Ph.D./M.Phil
(a) Four and two advance increments will be
admissible to those who hold Ph.D. and M.Phil
degrees, respectively, at the time of recruitment
as Scientists.
(b) One increment will be admissible to those
scientists with M.Phil degree who acquire Ph.D.
within two years of recruitment.

7 No. 25-4/95-Per V of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 513

Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through the Director
General and Anr. v. Rajinder Singh and Ors.

(c) A Scientist with Ph.D. will be eligible for two
advance increments when he moves into the
Selection Grade as Sr. Scientists.
(d) A Scientist will be eligible for two advance
increments as and when he acquires a Ph.D.
degree in his service career.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. The argument raised by the appellants is that it constituted two
services, namely Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Technical
Service (TS) on 01.10.1975. Both the services are governed by
their independent sets of rules having different cadres and different
promotional avenues.
8. Reliance was placed on Bye-laws 21 of Rules and Bye-laws of
ICAR, which classified scientific and technical categories. The same
is extracted below:
“(A) SCIENTIFIC: Scientific personnel shall be those
who are engaged in agricultural research and education
(including extension educational 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.
(B) TECHNICAL: 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.”
9. At the time of argument, it was not denied by the respondents that
they are 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 respondents being technical personnel
provide support in different areas. It is further the stand of the
appellants that the scientists belonging to Agricultural Research
514 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Service are getting UGC pay scales with effect from 01.01.1986. The
benefit of two advance increments for acquiring Ph.D. qualification
was part of their pay package. Similar benefit was not extended to
the technical personnel. For technical personnel, the appellants had
adopted the revised scales as recommended by the Government
of India for Central Government employees.
10. 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 idea of grant of study leave
for pursuing Ph.D. to the technical personnel was only to enable
them to improve their qualifications.
10.1 Merely after having Ph.D. qualification, the technical personnel
will not become eligible for grant of two advance increments
when the same has not been recommended for them. 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. In the said sequel of facts, Article 14 of
the Constitution of India will not have any application.
10.2 The Tribunal and High Court have erred by equating technical
personnel and scientists and granting respondents advance
increments to which they are not entitled to. The argument
raised by the respondents that after obtaining the Ph.D.
qualification, the Technical Staff are entitled to be considered
for lateral entry into the scientists is also to be noticed and
rejected as the additional qualification merely makes them
eligible for the higher post in the different cadre and not to
grant them benefits, which are attached to the higher post in
a different cadre. Similar is the position regarding Entry 66 in
List I to the 7th Schedule attached to the Constitution of India.
The contents of the Entries in 7th Schedule only prescribe
limits of the powers of the Parliament or the State Legislature
to enact laws.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 515

Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through the Director
General and Anr. v. Rajinder Singh and Ors.

11. For the reasons mentioned above, we find merit in the present
appeals. The same are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the
High Court and the Tribunal are set aside. The Original Applications
filed by the respondents before the Tribunal are dismissed. No order
as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain