- (1.) THREE petitioners before us were recruited to the post of Field/Farm Technician (Veterinary) (T -4), with the National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal/respondent No.4, under the aegis of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi/respondent No.3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the non -implementation of the 4th Pay Commission Recommendations qua their pay scale.
(2.) THE petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, which dismissed their OA vide impugned order dated 28.03.2001, which is sought to be assailed in the present petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners makes the following submissions: 1. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research, though a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, is under the administrative and financial control of the Ministry of Agriculture, Union of India and the service and financial rules framed by the Government of the India, are to apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Society, in terms of bye -law 30(a). 2. That, as a matter of fact, the 4th Pay Commission Recommendations were adopted by the ICAR. 3. The petitioners possess a decree in Veterinary Science and in terms of the 4th Pay Commission Recommendations, the recommended pay scale for persons possessing such a minimum qualification was of Rs. 2000 -60 - 2300 -EB -75 -3200 -100 -3500. This is what the petitioners are claiming as relief. 4. In an identical situation, the pay scale was granted and thereafter withdrawn and the aggrieved party Dr.Anil Kumar Gupta filed OA No.1317 of 1991, challenging the withdrawal, which was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, vide order dated 26.05.1998 and that order is stated to have been upheld right till the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits as under: (i) The ICAR is an independent body being a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission do not, ipso facto, apply. This is stated to be apparent from bye -law 30(a) which reads as under: 30.(a) Except in regard to matters for which specific provision has been made in the Rules, Bye -Laws, Regulations or Orders made or issued by the Society, the service and financial Rules framed by the Government of India and such other rules and orders issued by the Government of India from time to time shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the society in regard to matters concerning their service conditions. " (ii)As a matter of fact, the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission were not applied, mutatis mutandis. (iii)The requisite qualifications to the post occupied by the petitioners was not only a degree in veterinary science but a diploma or a degree in veterinary science and thus it would not be possible to carve out two pay scales for the same posts depending on the qualifications. (iv)The judgment in Anil Kumar Gupta's case was distinguishable because it proceeded on an assumption of the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission having been accepted by ICAR which was factually incorrect as noticed in the impugned order. (v)In Anil Kumar Gupta's case, the SLP was not dismissed but on the other hand the matter was remanded for consideration to the Division Bench which vide its order dated 03.12.1999 opined that since the relief order/circular had not been brought to the notice of the CAT, and had been relied upon before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for the first time, the respondents cannot be permitted to rely on the same.;