S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.) Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is an apex Agricultural Scientific Research Organisation. It has a network of Research Institutes/National Bureau, National Research Centres and Project Directorates. It has 47 Research Institutes, 5 National Bureau, 26 National Research Centres, 10 Project Directorates, 594 Krishi Vigyan Kendras and 73 All India Co-ordinated Research Projects.
(2.) First Appellant herein is the Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute being affiliated to ICAR. Respondents herein, who are four in number, were appointed in the post of Computers under a functional group known as Laboratory Technician (in the scale of pay of Rs.330-560). First respondent was appointed on 1.3.1972, second respondent was appointed on 10.2.1975 and the third respondent was appointed on 23.4.1976.
(3.) Indisputably ICAR, despite recommendations of the Third Pay Revision Commission, granted a scale of pay of Rs. 425-600/-. We may, however, notice that the contention of the appellant in this connection is that the pre-revised scale of pay for the holders of the post of Computer was Rs. 160-300/-. The said scale of pay was revised to Rs.330- 560. They were appointed as direct recruits as Technical Assistants (T-II-3) in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 on or about 18.5.1987. The said posts were under the functional group "Field/Farm Technician" of Technical Service Rules of ICAR. Relying on or on the basis of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, respondents herein filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal in 1988. The said application was dismissed opining that they were not entitled thereto as the classification of two categories was not unjust. It was furthermore held : "I am of the view that the application in respect of the relief sought in this case for the period they were when they were made Technical Assistant is hopelessly belated. The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court does not give them any right to make this claim because they have ceased to be Computor long back. There cannot be a retrospective revival of a grievance which was not felt when the alleged discrimination was in force. That judgment could have helped them if on the date they filed this application they were Computors and suffered such grievance." ;